Jazz guitar arpeggio drills

[sgcim]

As you said in the last paragraph, the 8th notes at 336bpm are just so I can sound and feel relaxed at normal performance tempos. I'd like to say that I'm never confronted with 336bpm, but one big band I'm in plays charts by people like Mintzer, Goodwin, etc.., and there are things that just fly by me when I'm trying to sight read them.

The C triad over the Bb13+11 thing is aiming at a more polytonal sound than anything else, kind of inspired by Bob Brookmeyer's use of sounds like that in his Quintet with Clark Terry. Even Ed Bickert had a striking use of that sound, along with Eddie Costa, and many others.

I knew you made forays into the US, but I didn't know you live here now. Kind of like Rene Rosnes and Peter Leitch.
How long have you been in SF?

[MarkRhodes]

Back to arpeggios...
Consider a tune, say "Autumn Leaves." Sheryl Bailey has an "arp study" on this, and so does Mimi Fox. Others do too, I'm sure. But how would such an arp study look if done with Reg's arpeggios? If the reference is always the root on the low E, that would make for a lot of jumping around, no?

Take it in Bb / Gm. You start with C - / F7 / Bb Mjr / Eb Mjr / Am7b5 / D7 / G- / G-

Is the idea to orient all those arps to a sixth string root? (I don't mean to start PLAYING each one on the 6th string root.) If so, you have to leave position when going from C- to F7----seven frets down or five frets up---and then come back for Bb but then do the same 7 down or 5 up for Eb. That doesn't sound right.

Or are you thinking that C- / F7 / Bb mjr / Eb mjr are all Bb major, so you have the whole 'grid' at your disposal?

[Reg]

You only jump around if you want... the fingering are not designed for what to play... they are designed for how to play anywhere on the fretboard. The point is to have a complete fretboard reference on anything anywhere. Like I have always said... be able to play anything anywhere on the neck.

In your example... C-7 to F7 / Bbmaj7 to Ebmaj7 etc... You can perform anywhere starting on any fret or string.... but to always have the complete fretboard at your disposal...

I can have one tonal reference Gmin... or Bbmaj to Gmin... or each chord can become a tonal target. The point is to not have individual cells of fingerings... like thinking C-7 with root 6th string and F7 with root 5th string etc... Once you make a choice as to how your harmonically/ melodically approaching what your playing.... your always looking at the complete fretboard. Like when you look or play a piano... your always looking and hearing the complete piano keyboard. All the notes are connected all the time. You always know where C3 is... even when your playing up around C5.

The guitar is set up based on 6 strings with 3 octaves and then repeats... It's not designed with small cells of different organizations of notes... there is a general pattern that repeats. We're not talking about what to play, right. We're simply talking about being aware of the basic design of the guitar and how to approach the instrument to be able to realize or perform music.

Then when you choose to play small cells of notes anyway you choose... they still have that basic relationship to being able to perform on the guitar.

So in your examples...Sheryl's or Mimi's.... they do have their own organization... but that doesn't change the basic organization of the guitar. Your not changing the physical design of the fretboard... your just choosing what you want to play and where.

Yea... the fingerings I use as my basic reference... are all based on 6th string roots and cover 2 octaves because that's the easiest and most common range of music...Two octaves generally covers most organizational approaches to performing music, but anytime I decide on a tonal reference... the complete fretboard is always part of the reference.

Again... the technical aspects of performing on the guitar.... not the technical organizations of Music. My approach reflected in how I technically perform on the guitar....

...is based on my technical understanding of Music and how I believe to be the best approach to realizing that understanding of music on the guitar with the physical design of the guitar as part of the technical organization.

[matt.guitarteacher]

I'm posting this, my own student perspective of CAGED and Leavitt vs. the 2nd Finger/6th String reference that Reg talks about, at the risk of being a pretentious arse. I do so for the benefit of anyone it may help in understanding. I'd appreciate any feedback, criticisms, or corrections. To be honest, I misunderstood the whole thing for several years after first hearing it. I thought about it in the same way as those posting questions of confusion over converting fingerings etc. It's not about that.

The 2nd finger is just a physical place-marker (a physical reference) for where you are. You learn where all the notes are in reference to that 2nd finger C at the 8th fret for example. It doesn't matter if you're playing in C major or Eb major or six different keys. If you know where C is, you can use that knowledge/feeling/sense of "place... to know where all of the Eb's are relative to it, whether you're playing a Cminor chord, F#dim, CbMaj in any key or chord of the moment. You don't even have to mentally convert modes to do so. All of the Eb's are always the same distance from that 2nd finger in that position, even if you never touch the C itself, with your 2nd finger.

I'm a good bit out of my depth, but this is my student perspective in the hopes that my explanation of my previous misunderstanding will aid even one other person.

If any of you happen to have a time machine, I need this video in 2008. Email me and I'll send you the address. :-)

[MarkRhodes]

I'm posting this, my own student perspective of CAGED and Leavitt vs. the 2nd Finger/6th String reference that Reg talks about, at the risk of being a pretentious arse. I do so for the benefit of anyone it may help in understanding. I'd appreciate any feedback, criticisms, or corrections. To be honest, I misunderstood the whole thing for several years after first hearing it. I thought about it in the same way as those posting questions of confusion over converting fingerings etc. It's not about that.

The 2nd finger is just a physical place-marker (a physical reference) for where you are. You learn where all the notes are in reference to that 2nd finger C at the 8th fret for example. It doesn't matter if you're playing in C major or Eb major or six different keys. If you know where C is, you can use that knowledge/feeling/sense of "place... to know where all of the Eb's are relative to it, whether you're playing a Cminor chord, F#dim, CbMaj in any key or chord of the moment. You don't even have to mentally convert modes to do so. All of the Eb's are always the same distance from that 2nd finger in that position, even if you never touch the C itself, with your 2nd finger.

Good stuff, Matt! That makes sense to me. And like you, I didn't see it that way a few years ago when Reg first started talking about it.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Several mistakes there. Slightly frustrated that my annotations didn't take. Need to change a setting or something when I get back.

[Reg]

Yea Matt your on the way to the fretboard becoming one big fingering based on the physics of the guitar. It's interesting... I basically figured this info out when I was a kid... so it's basically just instinctive... I don't really think about where my fingers need to go... I hear or if I'm thinking, it's about some type of harmonic relationship I want to try etc... not the fingering.

And also why my attempts to teach and explain don't work that well. Thanks, I'm sure within a few hundred more posts, it will become straight ahead.

[matt.guitarteacher]

And also why my attempts to teach and explain don't work that well. Thanks, I'm sure within a few hundred more posts, it will become straight ahead.

No, it's not that you're not explaining well. It's just the kind of thing that's somewhat difficult to verbalize or write about, at least for me. I didn't "get it" until I just kind of "got it". Anyway, I've never really heard anybody talk about it that way . So, I appreciate your patience.

I think it's also probably easy for some of us to be dismissive when we hear a pro playing a high-level say that something is "simple" and that they just have "average skills". :-)

Now, I at least have a glimpse toward the idea that simply organizing things better can accelerate the process greatly. Thanks for all your help always.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Take it in Bb / Gm. You start with C - / F7 / Bb Mjr / Eb Mjr / Am7b5 / D7 / G- / G-

Is the idea to orient all those arps to a sixth string root? (I don't mean to start PLAYING each one on the 6th string root.) If so, you have to leave position when going from C- to F7----seven frets down or five frets up---and then come back for Bb but then do the same 7 down or 5 up for Eb. That doesn't sound right.

Say you're in 7th position, 8th fret second finger, but could be anywhere... Now, if you're thinking about it the right way, you're going to play the exercise, in position, pretty much the same way as Sheryl does, depending on where you/she is coming from.

The first one's easy. Right? Think of C from C. Visualize all of the notes as scale degrees of C somewhat. I mean, you know where Eb is relative to C easily.

Then F7... I have always had a thought process something like....find the F mentally from C, and then I'm thinking scale degrees of F and thinking of the VISUAL PATTERN I've learned for F7, in that position. And I'd really be thinking more of the pattern than the notes or scale degrees. Or... even if I know the scale degrees (like we've been working on elsewhere, right?), I've learned them from the pattern ITSELF, by arbitrarily chanting the scale degrees. Not by just intrinsically knowing where those pitches are in that position.

Now, enough of that... Another way of thinking: F-A-C-Eb.... if I'm already at C, F is the 4th or 11th of C, (8th fret, 5th string and it's brother on the 3rd string). If I think about it THAT way and know where the 4th and/or 11th are, I can see both of them, in that position, relative to C, pretty easily. A.... is the 6 of C. I can see that just as easily as I can see it being the 3rd of F, once I learn it, and it's faster because I'm not changing references. C....holy crap....2nd finger reference and it's brothers...are you kidding? I don't really have to use A or F at all to FIND that note . Eb..... "flat third of C" is mentally faster than "7th of F" because you're not changing to thinking of everything from F.

The main flaw in my description above is that I'm still talking in theory terms about scale degrees or chord degrees from C. It's not necessarily a verbal or theoretical thought. It's the physical location. Where is Eb relative to my C? The same way you think of things in terms of their physical relationship to the black keys on piano, with or without theoretical, intervallic-shape, knowledge.

Think about it this way, my previous way of thinking has been to find all the notes relative to the chord of the moment, even if the chords/notes are all in the same position. So, if you take Eb, that pitch is in ALL of my chords. Why am I mentally re-finding it or re-remembering where it is relative to EACH NEW CHORD? It's simpler to just think of its physical location relative to my reference note.

Now, none of this makes sense on paper . You really have to experiment with thinking about it on the instrument, while playing. But it's actually pretty easy almost immediately, especially depending on the chord you're playing, And it feels very much like playing piano or another instrument , with note names somewhat lighting up before you . It's mentally freeing and relaxing.

The process on the piano, with a very young student, might be: "play F-A-C-Eb". Then, explain the theory as well, if you're doing it right , but once they know it they're thinking more of pitch names than the shape. If I taught them the way guitarists mostly learn arpeggios, it would be something like starting with no knowledge of any note names, and then saying, "Here's the physical SHAPE or pattern for F7 . Learn to PHYSICALLY play it , and then we'll learn all the note names from the shape itself, and from theory revolving around dominant seventh chords ". That's overly complex, and it is on the guitar as well.

"Physical location of notes", as a thought process, on piano or guitar, shouldn't have to be mentally linked to the chord of the moment or key of the moment. The physical location of the notes should BE the starting point from which we understand and BUILD theory, chords, scales, intervals etc.

[Shadow of the Sun]

So, with Reg's system: if I'm playing in the key of C, no matter where my left hand is on the neck, I'm referring it back to the 8th fret second finger C on the low E string, and using the other shapes he's used to orient myself based on that?

If I'm understanding correctly.

[matt.guitarteacher]

So, with Reg's system: if I'm playing in the key of C, no matter where my left hand is on the neck, I'm referring it back to the 8th fret second finger C on the low E string, and using the other shapes he's used to orient myself based on that?

If I'm understanding correctly.

No.

You know the PHYSICAL location of C relative to G at the third fret. You know the PHYSICAL location of C relative to A at the 5th fret. You know the PHYSICAL location of C relative to B at the third fret. All in position, for each position. Then, later, maybe you are connecting all of these into one large grid.

But the PHYSICAL LOCATION of the pitches, relative to your six string references (plural, in example above) , inform the patterns you play and your understanding of them, (as you modulate or play accidentals etc.), AS MUCH AS the PATTERNS inform which notes you play otherwise.

By the way, your statement above is what I think most people are generally misunderstanding about this. This has always been me.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Okay. So I'm still a bit fuzzy on this.

But say I'm in 3rd position. My reference is my 2nd finger on the 3rd fret of the 6th string. If I want to play a G minor scale, I work can do it because I know the physical relationships of the various notes/degrees based on that 3rd fret second fret reference. Is that right?

I'm not so sure how to apply that to other scales or chords within the same position, but I guess I just have to woodshed Reg's fingerings until it clicks.

[Reg]

So you know how a piano octave repeats... right. It doesn't matter where you play on a piano... the notes are always the same... right. you can play any patters of notes.

The difference on guitar is that... that constant pattern of notes... is a three octave repeating pattern.

6 strings that repeat after one octave or 12 frets. So you need to see, hear and understand the guitar within that 3 octave range.

So instead of fingerings being organized around one octave... pattern of notes that repeats, you need to have a.... because of the physical design of the guitar, a three octave pattern of fingerings that repeats.

Any organization of how you choose to design the fingerings will work... but it does need to become a three octave 12 fret organization

And as Matt pointed out.... its not the notes, it's just a system or organization of the fretboard ...where eventually 12 frets or three octaves becomes one big shape, pattern and reference fingerings.

[MarkRhodes]

So you know how a piano octave repeats... right. It doesn't matter where you play on a piano... the notes are always the same... right. you can play any patters of notes.

The difference on guitar is that... that constant pattern of notes... is a three octave repeating pattern.

6 strings that repeat after one octave or 12 frets. So you need to see, hear and understand the guitar within that 3 octave range.

So instead of fingerings being organized around one octave... pattern of notes that repeats, you need to have a.... because of the physical design of the guitar, a three octave pattern of fingerings that repeats.

It's funny to me now how often I've seen in music books (not guitar-specific ones) a scale given and then the directive to play it from one end of your instrument to the other. That's a tall order on the guitar! I knew as a kid that the 12th fret was the same as open strings, just an octave higher. (The minor pentatonic scale starting at the 12th fret was the "default" for blues licks in E.) But I never thought of the guitar as a 'three octave repeating pattern.' Boy, if I knew then what I know now! ;o)

[matt.guitarteacher]

Okay. So I'm still a bit fuzzy on this.

But say I'm in 3rd position. My reference is my 2nd finger on the 3rd fret of the 6th string. If I want to play a G minor scale, I work can do it because I know the physical relationships of the various notes/degrees based on that 3rd fret second fret reference. Is that right?

I'm not so sure how to apply that to other scales or chords within the same position, but I guess I just have to woodshed Reg's fingerings until it clicks.

Okay. Depends on minor scale , but maybe it's natural minor... You could look at Bb maj7. Most of us use the G as maybe a reference to find the Bb, and then just BUILD our shape on the B-flat, but the B-flat is our new reference, and we have to kind of rethink where we are and relationships etc. Kind of starting from scratch.

But if I'm still using the G note as a reference for finding the other pitches, Bb, D and F are still in the same place they were a second ago for Gm7. Why rethink it? I just need to learn the SENSE OF PLACE for each note in that position the way I just KNOW where notes are on the piano.

Most of us already know too much, too many patterns and shapes, to really appreciate the value of this at first. At least, that's the way it seems to me. It's very much like thinking 3579 for the B-flat major (because G is your reference point), except that THAT is just a horrible analogy..... verbal/symbolic, theory-based description. It's not that so much THAT (thinking so much), as just knowing the PLACE in reference to your finger and understanding the geography in each position.

For me, the shortcut to thinking this way is just thinking of that sixth string reference note as the root and everything else as a scale degree or chord tone of that. But again, that's just a cheat to get to really thinking of it as a sense of place relative to the reference note.

Edit: didn't see reg's... :-)

[Reg]

Okay. So I'm still a bit fuzzy on this.

But say I'm in 3rd position. My reference is my 2nd finger on the 3rd fret of the 6th string. If I want to play a G minor scale, I work can do it because I know the physical relationships of the various notes/degrees based on that 3rd fret second fret reference. Is that right?

I'm not so sure how to apply that to other scales or chords within the same position, but I guess I just have to woodshed Reg's fingerings until it clicks.

So if your 2nd finger is on the 3rd fret.... your in 2nd position, right. 1st finger determines position, right.

So yes...your playing a gmin scale with 2nd finger on 3rd fret, in 2nd position... what needs to also be going on is the rest of that fretboard pattern.... for whatever Gmin scale or chord your playing. The pattern of notes in 2nd position is only part of the pattern.... it's not the complete pattern and fingerings.
Even though your Performing in 2nd position using part of the pattern... the Gmin shape and fingering in 2nd position....the rest of the fretboard... all 12 frets and three octaves needs to also be there.

Just like your aware of the fingering your using in 2nd position.... while your Performing there.... You need to also be aware of the rest of the pattern and fingerings.

I use the seven patterns based on using my 2nd finger as base for almost all the time. So anytime I'm playing as you said... in 2nd position... playing any G minor... or whatever.... I'm always aware of the rest of the pattern... the 3 octave, 12 fret complete pattern.

Scales, arpeggios, chords... anything I play or read.... always has a complete 12 note, 3 octave pattern that repeats.

And I don't need to physically always play with those patterns and fingerings.... but they are always there as my basic reference.... how I physically see the fretboard.

Yea... that pattern changes with reference to what tonal reference I'm using....

That Gmin complete pattern... changes just like the one octave arpeggio pattern changes going from Gmin to Gmaj.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Still trying to see if I'm getting it here... =P

So, say I'm in the key of G and I'm just arpeggiating a ii-V-I progression (just with triads just to simplify things for my brain). So, I'm playing an A minor triad, A-C-E, a D major triad, D-F#-A, and a G major triad, G-B-D.

If I'm in 2nd position, I'd be trying to find those notes - the A, the C, the E, based on their relationship TO the 2nd finger root. When I play the D major triad, I do the same, trying to find the notes based on their relationship to the 2nd finger root, and finally for the G major triad, I can very easily find things based on the second finger root.

That's the basic principle that I'm understanding at the moment. And provided I stay in that position, I figure out what I want to play, be it a pentatonic scale in a different key, a specific lick etc in the same way as the ii-V-I, using the second finger root (perhaps second finger 'anchor' would be a better term since the note I'm figuring off of might not be the note of the key or chord I'm playing...) to "find" where the other notes are.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Still trying to see if I'm getting it here... =P

So, say I'm in the key of G and I'm just arpeggiating a ii-V-I progression (just with triads just to simplify things for my brain). So, I'm playing an A minor triad, A-C-E, a D major triad, D-F#-A, and a G major triad, G-B-D.

If I'm in 2nd position, I'd be trying to find those notes - the A, the C, the E, based on their relationship TO the 2nd finger root. When I play the D major triad, I do the same, trying to find the notes based on their relationship to the 2nd finger root, and finally for the G major triad, I can very easily find things based on the second finger root.

That's the basic principle that I'm understanding at the moment. And provided I stay in that position, I figure out what I want to play, be it a pentatonic scale in a different key, a specific lick etc in the same way as the ii-V-I, using the second finger root (perhaps second finger 'anchor' would be a better term since the note I'm figuring off of might not be the note of the key or chord I'm playing...) to "find" where the other notes are.

Yeah, that would be my way of thinking of it. The truly beautiful thing about thinking of it in that way is it's a PHYSICAL relationship which is always true, regardless of the key signature , chord of the moment, key of the moment etc. If I'm playing in B-flat or E flat, and have a "moment of G" with those three chords, it still feels the same and can be thought of in the same way. Just like on the piano, where you don't have to think about D7 differently in an outside key versus diatonic. D7 is just its own thing and can be thought of from any position on the guitar with the physical reference.
And it doesn't inhibit your understanding of context either. It's really a deeper understanding, because you can see the other relationships at the same time when what you're playing is referencing a constant, fixed kinesthetic reference point as well.

And that's really an important thing to think about. Context , theory, and analysis of patterns should be for the benefit of your UNDERSTANDING , not for the basis from which you simply figure out how to PLAY notes.

[SeanZ]

So if your 2nd finger is on the 3rd fret.... your in 2nd position, right. 1st finger determines position, right.

So yes...your playing a gmin scale with 2nd finger on 3rd fret, in 2nd position... what needs to also be going on is the rest of that fretboard pattern.... for whatever Gmin scale or chord your playing. The pattern of notes in 2nd position is only part of the pattern.... it's not the complete pattern and fingerings.
Even though your Performing in 2nd position using part of the pattern... the Gmin shape and fingering in 2nd position....the rest of the fretboard... all 12 frets and three octaves needs to also be there.

Just like your aware of the fingering your using in 2nd position.... while your Performing there.... You need to also be aware of the rest of the pattern and fingerings.

I use the seven patterns based on using my 2nd finger as base for almost all the time. So anytime I'm playing as you said... in 2nd position... playing any G minor... or whatever.... I'm always aware of the rest of the pattern... the 3 octave, 12 fret complete pattern.

Scales, arpeggios, chords... anything I play or read.... always has a complete 12 note, 3 octave pattern that repeats.

And I don't need to physically always play with those patterns and fingerings.... but they are always there as my basic reference.... how I physically see the fretboard.

Yea... that pattern changes with reference to what tonal reference I'm using....

That Gmin complete pattern... changes just like the one octave arpeggio pattern changes going from Gmin to Gmaj.

So would your 2nd finger also become the 'base' on all subsequent 'G's as part of the 3 octave pattern? I.E. if you begin w 2 finger on G on 6th string f3, then your 2nd finger would also be used at G on 5th string f10, G 4th st f5, G 3rd st f12 and G 2nd st f8?

thanks,

[Reg]

The tricky part might be... all seven of the fingerings I use....... are one fingering. the location of the 2nd finger is just the physical part of how I move around within the 3 octave repeating pattern.

I use the 2nd finger as physical makers for connecting the one big 12 fret fingering together as my base.

You can use any fingers anywhere... but like the piano... the location of the notes doesn't change. You need to add one more layer or dimension to your perception of notes on the guitar... Your trying to see or understand a 3 dimensional concept with only 2 dimensions.

So yes I could be using my 2nd finger to play G's on any string anywhere on he neck.... but that is a performance thing.

What we're trying to understand is the physical organization of the notes on the fretboard, and how they repeat.

And I have a fingeringing system that I use to navigate that... notes on the fretboard that repeat. Which on guitar is.... 12 frets and 3 octaves.

Any fingering organization could work. I just made a choice a long time which one I though was most logical and worked the best.

You can take away the fingerings and 6th string root base organization of the fretboard.... the repeating pattern of notes is still there.

[diminix]

So, with Reg's system: if I'm playing in the key of C, no matter where my left hand is on the neck, I'm referring it back to the 8th fret second finger C on the low E string, and using the other shapes he's used to orient myself based on that?

If I'm understanding correctly.

No.
[...]
By the way, your statement above is what I think most people are generally misunderstanding about this. This has always been me.

Great! Some decades back, at the end of a Nuclear Reactor Design seminar at university, when everything came together (a rather high level of math, Maxwell equations, Thermodynamics, whatever has been learned before), I was able to set up a system of differential equations describing the dynamics of a working reactor core depending on the positions of control rods. And I could solve that stuff and understand what is actually happening in there (and thus realize why human beings shouldn't run nuclear power plants at all, but that's another story). Back then, I had a feeling: "Man, this is where air is getting thin, there aren't too many people in this world that could follow. If I am able to understand that, most of the things in usual life shouldn't be too big a problem...".

Well, I was quite young and obviously didn't know much about life. Especially, I've never had a guitar in hand back then and I hadn't tried to play a major scale on that device. Nuclear physics obviously is a piece of cake compared to the guitar fretboard. After the discussion above and matt's answer to SoS (and his video) I am more at loss than ever before. To get behind Reg's fingerings, I have drawn them like this:



Everything is shown in relation to abstract root notes, so the fretboards are not starting where the drawing starts--they are endless, sort of. I have the seven scalar patterns displaced to each other, because I understood that they all can be put onto each other (with the displacements shown), so they build on large system that covers twelve frets and repeats in both directions. And I thought, that is what Reg is talking about with the "one great fingering all over the freatboard" thing. On the upper freatboard diagram I have drawn all seven major patterns pushed together to one large pattern:



In the second fretboard diagram, I tried to implement the G min scale thing SeanZ talked about. I would have thought, that we would take fingering #6 (Aeolian) of the major scale, and start with second finger sixth string as root note G (G is only the actual example, it could be any root note) in that pattern to have a G min fingering. If I rename all notes of the other six fingerings in the same way (starting with the minor scale root, where the 2 has been in the major scale), and compress all seven patterns to one large fingering, I get the same big structural thing (only the relative note names shuffled around).

Now, it seems, that "most people are generally misunderstanding" this, me too. What shall I do to learn the fretboard and use it to improvise? Since I have the feeling, that I shouldn't solely need to know these fingerings and the relation of notes within these fingerings, but also the actual note names with respect to the actual context I am using these fingerings in, and see all that in application by improvising with a band that is spitting out two different chords per measure at 180 bpm, subs and all that--how should I believe that any brain has ever been able to do this? I doubt it that mine could do that any time soon. Maybe I would rather put my guitar back to the wall and look for another hobby, maybe build a nuclear power plant in my backyard...

Robert

[matt.guitarteacher]

Now, it seems, that "most people are generally misunderstanding" this, me too. What shall I do to learn the fretboard and use it to improvise? Since I have the feeling, that I shouldn't solely need to know these fingerings and the relation of notes within these fingerings, but also the actual note names with respect to the actual context I am using these fingerings in, and see all that in application by improvising with a band that is spitting out two different chords per measure at 180 bpm, subs and all that--how should I believe that any brain has ever been able to do this? I doubt it that mine could do that any time soon. Maybe I would rather put my guitar back to the wall and look for another hobby, maybe build a nuclear power plant in my backyard...

Robert

Yeah, Robert. I feel you. I'm right there with you, a couple of weeks ago.

The thing is, you set your fretboard software , which I'm assuming is lick my neck, to display scale degrees. Click on "note names" instead of scale degrees and look at it the same way, or if you must, click on the second finger note and "set as root" on whatever menu that is. Heck, it's two clicks. Why don't you do both and post it again? (Talking about the last 2, with major and minor....)

The idea is to look at references which are CONSTANT rather than changing. The theoretical reference of scale degrees and modulating scales completely changes everything when you change scales. That's where the thought that you have to "change all of your patterns every time a note changes" comes from.

It's very true in a sense, but you don't have to think about it that way at first. It's easier to start with the constants. G is the same regardless of key. If you modulate from G to C on piano, you don't think about changing an entire fingering pattern. You just change the F sharp to F natural. So, here, if you've learned the patterns, great. They'll basically inform your hand of what the current pattern is simply by changing one of the F sharps to F. Your hand is telling you C or G mixolydian before you even have to think it.

Use the CONSTANT (note names, and they're never changing locations) to give you the fingering and the theory, the way you would on a piano , rather than using the THEORY or PATTERNS to change everything in the first place. Mixolydian and Dorian are the same except for one note . Aolian and Dorian same thing. etc. etc.

Honestly, for me, reading is the easiest entry point, and the most obvious immediate benefit. The benefit was not gradual and incremental, for me. It was basically immediate. I'll be happy to post read-through from my idiot's perspective if it would help.

Tweaking your diagrams above would be a good first start though.

[Mr. Pocket]

I know where to find some parts of the fukashima plant that washed up in North America to get you started.

I've been comparing Reg's fingerings with Richie Zellons (which a lot of people here are using lately) The only difference between Reg's and Richies system is between the 3rd and 2nd string. For example, Reg's ii position is the same as Richies root position, except the 5th is played with the pinky on the 3rd string instead of index on the 2nd string. Reg's iii is the same as Richies ii position with the same difference in the pinky vs index fingering and so on.

They are similar enough but either might work better for a certain arpeggio movement, voiceleading or embellishment. I'm sure both Reg and Richie are able to break out of the grid in order to play a riff the most fluid way. I'm working on Reg's fingerings for now, since I see a lot of this a necessary way of dealing with the major 3rd in order to become fluid to begin with.

So back to arpeggios and how they relate to these fingering position systems, after learning all diatonic chord arpeggios in root position, then learning them in the other 6 positions (2nd finger on root, ii, iii, etc if using Reg's fingerings), then it's a matter of doing the same in all keys, so that the grid becomes movable, right? I guess the part that is hard for me to get my head around, which might become clear later and what I think the discussion has moved to, is how to adapt without thinking to a key change. That might be a matter of experience and just being really familiar with the "grid" in all keys where you are at the moment.

[Reg]

It's only complicated because your trying to have the organization show you what and how to perform the notes. The organization is just showing you what the diatonic notes to any tonal reference are on the fretboard.

Lets go back to square one...

If your just playing in one position... you don't need to think about the fingering of what your playing.... right. It's already instinctive. And if you play a lick or a line that needs to adjust the fingering in that position... you just adjust right... you don't need a lesson in quantum mechanics just to change which finger stretches or if you slide up or down a fret or two.

And what you play in that position... isn't telling you what to play... it's just a possible fingering of the notes in that area of the fretboard with a tonal relationship.

So all your doing is finishing learning how the fretboard is organized... not what to play... and instead of just one position... there are seven... or five... or how ever you choose. But the complete pattern.

The point is if your going to be able to perform using the guitar as it is designed.... at some point you need to finishing learning the fretboard.

Not what to play or even how to play.... just learning how to play the instrument you've chosen to play.

I'm a little shocked at how complicated this very basic concept seems to be.

[MarkRhodes]

And that's really an important thing to think about. Context , theory, and analysis of patterns should be for the benefit of your UNDERSTANDING , not for the basis from which you simply figure out how to PLAY notes.

Yeah. Matt, I'm just like you here. Well, no, your grasp of this is much keener than mine. But our initial Just Plain Missing The Point was the same. Now that I'm getting the point, I think, "Dang! Why didn't I know this before? It's so much simpler than what I have been doing!" Not that I fully have it, but the light is going on. If Reg is the Jesus of this, you are the Apostle Paul!