Friendly fretboard organization? Is it possible?

[P4guitar]

Well … the spelling of triads doesn’t change to suit either tuning.

Are you suggesting I said they don't? Here's what I wrote to YOU earlier: "Agreed. Musical concepts apply to any tuning or instrument."

Weird flex after commenting on the material in the book and intention of its author.

Here's what I wrote to YOU in the second sentence from the same post above earlier: "Boden stated that some of the material was difficult with P4, probably true as Goodrick tuned in standard. Had he tuned in P4, the reverse would be true." I never claimed to know the book, just the opposite as I asked for examples.

It's comments like this that suggest you're trying to dig at me on a topic you don't know much about. Fine, I believe in free speech.

[P4guitar]

I do play more single note stuff than chords, but if I mainly played a lot of chord melody or chordal type playing I would NOT choose P4 tuning.

Or, if you teach or are thinking of teaching guitar, then please, don't use P4.

To each their own.

[Jonah]

Hey guys.

It's me again. I'm trying to pick myself up after recently giving up the guitar for a few months. I am looking for a new way of learning.
I have a question/request. Can you tell me how you organize the notes - chords tones (intervals) on the guitar? What I mean is a logical and transparent method - ideally one that allows you to look at the fretboard like a pianist looks at the keyboard. I looked but didn't find it. Maybe someone has gone through a similar approach or knows how to organize it all in a logical, transparent and accessible way?

I played a lot since I was a kid... classical, rock, jazz.
And it is still neither logical nor transparent

[Tal_175]

I played a lot since I was a kid... classical, rock, jazz.
And it is still neither logical nor transparent

Have you deliberately worked on fretboard organization as a serious area of study or has it been a more visceral process for you?

[pamosmusic]

Are you suggesting I said they don't? Here's what I wrote to YOU earlier: "Agreed. Musical concepts apply to any tuning or instrument."



Here's what I wrote to YOU in the second sentence from the same post above earlier: "Boden stated that some of the material was difficult with P4, probably true as Goodrick tuned in standard. Had he tuned in P4, the reverse would be true." I never claimed to know the book, just the opposite as I asked for examples.

It's comments like this that suggest you're trying to dig at me on a topic you don't know much about. Fine, I believe in free speech.

I mean … you did say Mick wrote it for standard tuned guitar, which was why Guy was having trouble with it in P4 tuning.

Neither of which would likely be the case.

But I suppose I believe in free speech too.

[P4guitar]

I mean … you did say Mick wrote it for standard tuned guitar, which was why Guy was having trouble with it in P4 tuning..

Neither of which would likely be the case.

But I suppose I believe in free speech too.

Not having read the book, I could only go on what Boden wrote, namely that he couldn't do some of the written examples because the stretches were too long for P4 tuning, which implies that it was written for, or at least more suited, for SGT. How else could I interpret it?

[Litterick]

Mandolins, violins, violas and cellos are tuned in fifths. Nobody seems to mind.

[Christian Miller]

Not having read the book, I could only go on what Boden wrote, namely that he couldn't do some of the written examples because the stretches were too long for P4 tuning, which implies that it was written for, or at least more suited, for SGT. How else could I interpret it?

This isn’t the case. In fact not all the cycles and voicings are practical in SGT, for example close voiced sevenths. These would incidentally also be a bit stretchier in P4

What is apparent right away is that some of the basic cycles (drop2 and drop3) are less stretchy in SGT than they would be in P4. I’m thinking especially of first inversion drop 2 and second inversion drop 3 7th chords.

In fact, major thirds tunings would help with this.

[Jonah]

Have you deliberately worked on fretboard organization as a serious area of study or has it been a more visceral process for you?

when I began to play jazz at certain point I practiced arpeggios and different chord patterns inversions... rather simple approach. I was not very systematic and cosistent but still I did quite a lot of that stuff.
Mostly I am kind of doing here and there and eventually the puzzle comes together into a picture... this my mentality probably in everything. I learn languages the same way... I am a linguist so I see the structure and grammar very well and easily absorb it and do it correctly.
But I am lazy to do daily routine with vocabulary and all... so for me it is important to find something that I really want to read in the language - this a motivation (and of course when I need to speak, like now I have to speak Dutch and I learn it, and found a couple of books that I seem to like to read - so it makes a pathway more or less and eventually I know I will speak well... but I cannot sit everyday and do excercises)

I also sight-read classical quite fluently. It also helps but sight-reading is not the same thing as fretborad organization for sure.
I know good sight readers - but when you ask to play an a D major arp - they are confused and begin to look for notes...

By the way though the piano is more visually transparent - it is the same thing there. I play piano as an amateur. I play a lot of baroque and classical and early romatic music just for pleasure.
At certain point I wanted to improve and my friend - very good pianist and teacher just sat with me for a couple of hours - and at the end he said the same thing as for guitar: practice arpeggios and some scales for just some time per day so that fingues would memorize the pattern associated with particular harmony (because I see and hear harmony very well in the score) and then you will not have to fumble or look for a key... becasue you play Bach and it is clear the line is arounf F# major arp so your ear and mind work fine but the fingers should just react to it automatically.
And sight-read more he said... just open Little Preludes, Inventions, Suites and play it from the score. First do arps and scales for some time (choose a couple of patterns, and he also gave me advice how to practice two hands arps and scales) and then just sight-read for 30-40 min whatever is fun to you. And eventually you play quite ok. For your own pleasure at least.
(Of course it works when you are already above some basic things)

When I played on baroque lute I spent some time on concious organization of the fretboard though to play better continuo and sight read from standard notation (I am still in the process) but again not very consistently

[Litterick]

Not having read the book, I could only go on what Boden wrote, namely that he couldn't do some of the written examples because the stretches were too long for P4 tuning, which implies that it was written for, or at least more suited, for SGT. How else could I interpret it?

Most books are written for SGT. If some parts of a book were written for other tunings, one would expect the author to say so. The publisher would not want the readers to struggle with the wrong tuning; not good for future sales.

[jazznylon]

Mick briefly mentions p4 tuning in the advancing guitarist book at the end of 'the approach'. Questioning what would happen to the std tuning open string intervals and chords should one tune the two upper strings up a half step.. he then goes on and ask 'Have you suddenly decided to become a short order cook?". Definitedly food for thought.. and made me reconsider my options when faced with the abundance of triads and 7th chords (recipes) that soon came after a couple of pages.. very daunting indeed. I don't know what was Mick's thought process here but it seems he recognizes the value of going for a symmetric tuning at least when it came to fretboard knowledge. I went for M3 instead as I like how everything is more compact. But yeah interesting ponderings...

[P4guitar]

For clarity, here's my comment you're responding to below: "Not having read the book, I could only go on what Boden wrote, namely that he couldn't do some of the written examples because the stretches were too long for P4 tuning, which implies that it was written for, or at least more suited, for SGT. How else could I interpret it?"

This isn’t the case.

My question is, what did I say above that is incorrect? Not having read the book or my interpretation of Boden's comment? ...or something else?

In fact not all the cycles and voicings are practical in SGT, for example close voiced sevenths. These would incidentally also be a bit stretchier in P4

Obviously. I will point out that while stretches going to the nut are a fret longer in P4 than SGT, stretches going to the bridge are a fret shorter/easier in P4. It's always a trade off, but the deciding factor for me was simplying the fretboard map.

What is apparent right away is that some of the basic cycles (drop2 and drop3) are less stretchy in SGT than they would be in P4. I’m thinking especially of first inversion drop 2 and second inversion drop 3 7th chords.

I have to confess, I never bothered with learning the drop stuff. Instead for a given chord, I'd learn to play it from whatever bass note came up, another area where P4 helped me visualize the appropriate notes.

In fact, major thirds tunings would help with this.

Probably, possibly, and I don't know.

[Christian Miller]

For clarity, here's my comment you're responding to below: "Not having read the book, I could only go on what Boden wrote, namely that he couldn't do some of the written examples because the stretches were too long for P4 tuning, which implies that it was written for, or at least more suited, for SGT. How else could I interpret it?"



My question is, what did I say above that is incorrect? Not having read the book or my interpretation of Boden's comment? ...or something else?



Obviously. I will point out that while stretches going to the nut are a fret longer in P4 than SGT, stretches going to the bridge are a fret shorter/easier in P4. It's always a trade off, but the deciding factor for me was simplying the fretboard map.



I have to confess, I never bothered with learning the drop stuff. Instead for a given chord, I'd learn to play it from whatever bass note came up, another area where P4 helped me visualize the appropriate notes.



Probably, possibly, and I don't know.

I think even for JGO discussing the nature of a book with someone who hasn’t read it is a little bit pointless haha. Ah well.

If you had a look at it I think you’d appreciate it’s pretty tuning agnostic. There’s no fingerings in the book. Neither the voicing types nor the cycles themselves have much to do with the guitar per se. Drops are a general jazz theory thing , not a guitar thing.

So the salient point as I understand it is that voicings that go 3 7 1 5 and 5 3 7 1 would be marginally harder to play in P4. There’s a lot of that in book 1. I don’t think they’d be impossible. I’m ok with these voicings on the bottom four.

Otoh voicings that go 2 7 1 5 might be a bridge too far.

[GuyBoden]

For clarity, here's my comment you're responding to below: "Not having read the book, I could only go on what Boden wrote, namely that he couldn't do some of the written examples because the stretches were too long for P4 tuning

Please quote the correct info, I never stated "couldn't do some of the written examples because the stretches were too long for P4 tuning"

See the correct quote below from this post:
"https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/getting-started/98052-friendly-fretboard-organization-possible-4.html#post1309826"

A lot of the chords in Mick Goodrick's Guitar Voice Leading Almanacs are even more difficult than standard tuning in P4 tuning too.

[pamosmusic]

My question is, what did I say above that is incorrect? Not having read the book or my interpretation of Boden's comment? ...or something else?

Have to agree w Christian on this one.

But also, the JGO user Liarspoker is one of the curators of this site, dedicated to Micks stuff in particular, and the kind of teaching tools Mick liked to employ in general. The books are available for free here.

Resources for Jazz Guitar and More - Modern Guitar Harmony

[P4guitar]

You didn't answer my question. What did I say that was incorrect?

I think even for JGO discussing the nature of a book with someone who hasn’t read it is a little bit pointless haha. Ah well.

Agreed, but fortunately that's not the issue...or at least it shouldn't be. I was discussing Boden's recollection of the book and taking him at his word. To be fair to Boden, he never stated the book was for SGT, he said some of the stretches were too much for P4 which I interpreted as "written for SGT".

If you had a look at it I think you’d appreciate it’s pretty tuning agnostic. There’s no fingerings in the book. Neither the voicing types nor the cycles themselves have much to do with the guitar per se. Drops are a general jazz theory thing , not a guitar thing.

Fair enough. FWIW, I don't care enough to approach chords from the "drop" concept, I just pick a bass note and learn ways to form chords from that point.

So the salient point as I understand it is that voicings that go 3 7 1 5 and 5 3 7 1 would be marginally harder to play in P4. There’s a lot of that in book 1. I don’t think they’d be impossible. I’m ok with these voicings on the bottom four.

Otoh voicings that go 2 7 1 5 might be a bridge too far.

I can do those, including the 2715 which, assuming I read it correctly, is actually fairly easy: the 2 and 7 form a bar and the 1 and 5 get the pinky and middle fingers respectively - it should be the same on your bottom four. Need I note that P4 offers the advantage of available voicings being the same across string sets; one needn't learn three different forms of the same voicing like SGT requires.

[P4guitar]

Please quote the correct info, I never stated "couldn't do some of the written examples because the stretches were too long for P4 tuning"

See the correct quote below from this post:
"https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/getting-started/98052-friendly-fretboard-organization-possible-4.html#post1309826"

That was my misreading and I apologize for remembering it as "couldn't" when "more difficult" was what you actually said.

[P4guitar]

Have to agree w Christian on this one.

But also, the JGO user Liarspoker is one of the curators of this site, dedicated to Micks stuff in particular, and the kind of teaching tools Mick liked to employ in general. The books are available for free here.

Resources for Jazz Guitar and More - Modern Guitar Harmony

Of course. As for the books, thanks, but I'm not interested as my musical direction is elsewhere at the moment.

[pamosmusic]

You didn't answer my question. What did I say that was incorrect?
…
Fair enough. FWIW, I don't care enough to approach chords from the "drop" concept, I just pick a bass note and learn ways to form chords from that point.

I hope you can understand why folks might not have the patience to explain what you get wrong about how your tuning might interact with a concept (common to piano, guitar, vibraphone, and multi-voice arranging) that you “don’t care enough to approach” and how they’re presented in a book you haven’t checked out.

I can do those, including the 2715 which, assuming I read it correctly, is actually fairly easy: the 2 and 7 form a bar and the 1 and 5 get the pinky and middle fingers respectively - it should be the same on your bottom four.

For what it’s worth, I think you’re mixing up the 7 and 1. I find 3715 to be harder, honestly.

Need I note that P4 offers the advantage of available voicings being the same across string sets

Sweet lord, no you do not.

[pamosmusic]

As for me … for drop 2 voicings in particular … I have tendinitis and carpal tunnel issues that flare up from time to time and I’ve had to kind of just remove the bottom string set from my practice because the stretches are considerably harder than on the upper two string sets that have the maj 3 involved.

[P4guitar]

I hope you can understand why folks might not have the patience to explain what you get wrong about how your tuning might interact with a concept (common to piano, guitar, vibraphone, and multi-voice arranging) that you “don’t care enough to approach” and how they’re presented in a book you haven’t checked out.

Exactly what did I get wrong about my tuning and drop voicings? Why isn't my approach equally valid?

I'm not interested in your suggested literature because I do things my way, I've already acquired a ton of voicings and the process to learn more, and I'm currently deep into a more interesting and far more rewarding rabbit hole.

For what it’s worth, I think you’re mixing up the 7 and 1.

I don't think so. I explained my fingering in my reply to Christian above which you can test out yourself on your lower string set. Once you get it, you'll have to learn two more forms of course - sorry.

I find 3715 to be harder, honestly.

I accept that.

Me: "Need I note that P4 offers the advantage of available voicings being the same across string sets "

Sweet lord, no you do not.

You forgot the exclamation at the end of your sentence. Regardless I'm impelled to repeat this ad nauseam, eventually someone will get it - not you of course. Look up "Voltaire" and "chains"

[MarkRhodes]

I mean, who can argue with Jimmy Bruno? I know his way of looking at the fretboard is pretty much CAGED shapes, albeit a different way of looking/naming them... I dunno, I’d tried with all other methods and whilst I thought I knew the fretboard (which is always on ongoing thing I might add!), I was always coming up short and being shown the 5 fret method really showed some flaws in the methods I was initially using.

If you ever want to piss off Jimmy Bruno, ask him if what he does is the CAGED system. He HATES that term. (Joe Pass used it but Jimmy despises it.) The fingerings are the same.

Jimmy names the five fingerings from the lowest note on the low E string: 5, 6, 7, 2, and 3. (He starts his "Ionian" fingering from the 7th.)
If you change that 7 to a 1, his fingerings relate nicely to the major pentatonic scale: 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. But again, that's not how he's thinking. His way is simply, "Key of C, these are the notes, and this is where they are on the guitar." (In that key, and avoiding open strings, the fingerings appear in that order: 5.6.7.2.3. For G they appear in this order: 7, 2, 3, 5, 6. For D, the order is 3, 5, 6. 7, 2. And so on. After a while, you don't think about the numbers or the sequences, you just know them.)

[GuyBoden]

Me: "Need I note that P4 offers the advantage of available voicings being the same across string sets "

Yes, the same shape patterns for chords, scales, licks, etc must be a big advantage for beginners.

But, not if you've been playing for many years and already know the fretboard, 30 years in my case, when I changed to P4 about 15 years ago.

I was told not to change by some P4 players, that I would regret it.

[Reg]

Yea for the OP... it really doesn't matter what tuning you use... You still have to put in the time on a systyem and FINISH IT... Fingerings are the least of your problems. It's the easy part.... Knowing what to play takes years.

I think RP mentioned it earlier.... learn to Read Music as you develop your fingerings. It will make everything much easier later on when you start playing in a jazz style.

[AllanAllen]

Yea for the OP... it really doesn't matter what tuning you use... You still have to put in the time on a systyem and FINISH IT... Fingerings are the least of your problems. It's the easy part.... Knowing what to play takes years.

I think RP mentioned it earlier.... learn to Read Music as you develop your fingerings. It will make everything much easier later on when you start playing in a jazz style.

Reg, OP is gone for sure.