Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posts 51 to 89 of 89
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    I'm not always a 3 note player, though I did learn my scales that way, originally...

    I don't visualize arpeggios either really...I visualize chord shapes...te other notes that might be sequential but not "in" the shape appear a different visual "color" if you will. I know that gets a little towards synaesthesia or something but yeah...colors.
    Jeff Matz, Jazz Guitar:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/jeffreymatz

    "Jazz is like life...it goes on longer than you think, and as soon as you're like 'oh, I get it,' it ends."

    --The Ghost of Duke Ellington

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    The thing about 3NPS scales is that is what fits naturally under the hand
    and for the string pairs tuned in 4ths maintains a 5 fret position.
    The major 3rd tuning (G-B) throws things off and veers up the neck slightly.
    Playing 2 notes on either the B or G strings maintains the position.
    Because of the unpredictable nature of improvisation, the ability to orient
    from any finger, on any scale degree, in any key and proceed in any direction
    seems fundamental to me.

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
    I have no idea what ANY other jazzers prefer. I learned them from jazzer Warren Nunes. They always made infinite sense to me. To be clear these start on 1st, 2nd or 4th fingers. Not the 3rd.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yeah, of course there's no absolute orthodoxy.

    It's more that a certain amount of my time has been spent talking players out of doing 3NPS when they were getting into jazz, but it seems there's a way of doing it. Don't know anything about Nunes though.

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    Why would you talk people out of it?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
    Why would you talk people out of it?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    That’s a good question!

  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
    Why would you talk people out of it?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    By the same token, why did Warren Nunes talk you into doing it?

    If you have one way of doing things that seems to work, you teach to students. You can't reasonably be expected to learn every school of playing, so you teach them from your experience.

    In general my approach is 'if it ain't broke don't fix it.' But these student players need advice about where to put their fingers, I'm going to teach them the way that I found worked for me. If on the other hand if they already have all the scales and arps under their fingers, doesn't matter.

    I generally worked around the chord shapes, mostly I think, basically CAGED. Pretty old school. There's so many brilliant players who played that way, and I like the direct relationship between chords and melodic lines that you can see on the fretboard.

    More recently I've got into octave cells. That could be used for 3nps style positions if you wanted. It's a bit more flexible than my older approach. I feel position playing is a bit unwieldy on the guitar. We don't tend to need to shred 2+ octave scales to play jazz... We need smaller, manageable groupings of notes.

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    I'm partially repeating myself but this thread is getting revived again.

    I see arpeggios as where the numbered notes are i.e. Major=1,3,5,+7. There are several ways to do this. 2 notes per string will cover more but there will be 3 positions changes as you go up the neck. A combination of 1 or 2 notes per string will pretty much keep you in one position. Then there's Gambale's sweeping arps which I don't do!

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    By the same token, why did Warren Nunes talk you into doing it?

    If you have one way of doing things that seems to work, you teach to students. You can't reasonably be expected to learn every school of playing, so you teach them from your experience.

    In general my approach is 'if it ain't broke don't fix it.' But these student players need advice about where to put their fingers, I'm going to teach them the way that I found worked for me. If on the other hand if they already have all the scales and arps under their fingers, doesn't matter.

    I generally worked around the chord shapes, mostly I think, basically CAGED. Pretty old school. There's so many brilliant players who played that way, and I like the direct relationship between chords and melodic lines that you can see on the fretboard.

    More recently I've got into octave cells. That could be used for 3nps style positions if you wanted. It's a bit more flexible than my older approach. I feel position playing is a bit unwieldy on the guitar. We don't tend to need to shred 2+ octave scales to play jazz... We need smaller, manageable groupings of notes.
    Well I didn’t by talk students out of doing something. I try to show them the way I do it and explain why. The same approach he did with me.

    I find the 7 scale pattern 3 notes per string extremely logical and symmetrical. I see nothing not jazz about it. The only reason I mention Nunes is because he was a tremendous jazz player who showed us how symmetrical and logical they were. All my chords and arpeggios come directly from the scale patterns as one complete system. I don’t use box chord systems. For me and every student who I’ve gotten to really examine it has converted. But it’s not necessary.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
    Well I didn’t by talk students out of doing something. I try to show them the way I do it and explain why. The same approach he did with me.
    Yeah I think that was my bad use of language TBH.

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    Yeah, of course there's no absolute orthodoxy.

    It's more that a certain amount of my time has been spent talking players out of doing 3NPS when they were getting into jazz, but it seems there's a way of doing it. Don't know anything about Nunes though.

    The problem you’ve encountered has nothing to do with the 3nps system, and everything to do with bad teachers.


    There were hoards of shitty guitar players released unto the world in the 80’s after being showed these boxes, learned about modes for 25 minutes, and were instructed to shwiddle them as fast as they could.



    Its simply a tool/reference. What you do with it makes you an artist.

  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by vintagelove View Post
    The problem you’ve encountered has nothing to do with the 3nps system, and everything to do with bad teachers.


    There were hoards of shitty guitar players released unto the world in the 80’s after being showed these boxes, learned about modes for 25 minutes, and were instructed to shwiddle them as fast as they could.



    Its simply a tool/reference. What you do with it makes you an artist.
    Sounds about right.

    But I was genuinely unaware that there was a 3nps fretboard mapping tradition within jazz guitar, let alone one with - it seems - quite a few adherents here. So that's an interesting thing. I'll look into Nunes.

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    7th arpeggios in 3NPS are quite simple, there are 3 basic fingering string group tendencies
    for each inversion.

    Root

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --------------2--------------------------3----------------2--5-------------------------
    ----------3----------------------2---5-----------------3-------------------------------
    --1---5----------------------3----------------------5----------------------------------

    3rd
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -----------------------------------------2----------------2--3-------------------------
    ----------3--5------------------2---5-----------------3-------------------------------
    --1---5----------------------3----------------------5----------------------------------

    5th
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -----------------------------------------2--------------------3-------------------------
    ----------1---5------------------2--3-----------------3--5-----------------------------
    --1---5----------------------3----------------------5----------------------------------


    7th
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ----------------------------------------2---------------------3---------------------
    ---------2--5-----------------------3------------------2--5----------------------------
    --1--3----------------------3---5-------------------5----------------------------------

    Overlaps heavily with any position based fingering approach but leans upward
    a bit at the G-B ma3rd juncture

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by bako View Post
    The thing about 3NPS scales is that is what fits naturally under the hand
    .
    I find that it does not myself. The requisite stretches feel unnatural to me on the guitar and create an unwanted tension in my fretting hand. Though I also play the mandolin and use a four note per string pattern on that 13 inch scale fretboard.

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Neverisky View Post
    I find that it does not myself. The requisite stretches feel unnatural to me on the guitar and create an unwanted tension in my fretting hand. Though I also play the mandolin and use a four note per string pattern on that 13 inch scale fretboard.
    Ah yeah. Well it also depends on your finger policy. I NEVER stretch between my 3rd and 4th finger. The stretch of two whole steps from the 1st finger is always followed by the 2nd finger, never the 3rd. That way your hand learns to stretch naturally. Going 1, 2, 4 becomes natural. Going 1,3,4 contracts and is, or can be painful.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    I don’t find it natural either. I think it works ok if you play with a classic technique perhaps with the guitar on the left knee and the guitar at an angle, thumb behind neck etc.

    Biggest problem would be bending of the wrist and potential carpal tunnel problems for right knee players. Lots of players have had problems with this including Kurt apparently. And me.

    Stretches can be really bad news in folk position, which is of course why classical posture exists.

    However, stretches aren’t necessary for melodic playing. I’d always rather shift than stretch, which I think sounds more vocal.

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    Well like I said when you open your hand with a stretch between the 1st and 2nd it starts feeling very natural. The hand OPENS and is really a natural stretch. But going from the 3rd to the 4th fingers for a whole step becomes a constrictive stretch. Quite a different thing.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by henryrobinett; 09-11-2019 at 10:48 AM.

  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
    Well like I said when you open your hand with a trench between the 1st and 2nd it starts feeling very natural. The hand OPENS and is really a stretch. But going from the 3rd to the 4th fingers for a whole step becomes a constructive stretch. Quite a different thing.
    I get what you're saying. It may come down to individual physiology then. I had a few lessons with Sal Salvador when I was a teen and he was drilling his students on multi-octave scales which, if I recall, involved a trench between 1st and 2nd fingers. At least that 3 octave F major comes to mind. No open strings, ever.

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by EddieLastra View Post
    As I mentioned in post #4, here is the arpeggio stack that is embedded in pattern #1

    Highlighted in red


    Attachment 25561
    Steve Crowell teaches those. (He studied with Warren.) It's interesting how they recur. For this, the arps are iii vi ii V7. (Starting on the 2nd note of the scale---G, pattern 2, or Dorian----the arps would be IV vii iii vi. And so on. Steve thinks mainly in terms of tonic and dominant. In some shapes, you an even mix of tonic and dominant arps but not in all of them. And the "vi" can go either way, depending on how you handle it. There's a lot more to it than one can appreciate right off the bat.
    "Learn the repertoire. It’s all in the songs. If you learn 200 songs, you will have no problem improvising."
    Frank Vignola

  20. #69

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
    Well like I said when you open your hand with a trench between the 1st and 2nd it starts feeling very natural. The hand OPENS and is really a stretch. But going from the 3rd to the 4th fingers for a whole step becomes a constructive stretch. Quite a different thing.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I see what you mean.

    Reminds me of, don’t stretch up to the 4th finger notes, stretch back to the 1st finger notes. (My wife roach me that one, she’s a cellist.)

    I think that’s a good one for ensuring a less pronated fretting hand.

    OTOH I’m a pronator with a stupid flappy pinky, and I doubt that’ll change soon (hey I’m in good company) but I’ll around with that.

  21. #70

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    I see what you mean.

    Reminds me of, don’t stretch up to the 4th finger notes, stretch back to the 1st finger notes. (My wife roach me that one, she’s a cellist.)

    I think that’s a good one for ensuring a less pronated fretting hand.

    OTOH I’m a pronator with a stupid flappy pinky, and I doubt that’ll change soon (hey I’m in good company) but I’ll around with that.
    Apologies. I had some autocorrect errors in the stretching post. I hope it wasn’t misunderstood. I fixed it now. I think you got what I meant!




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  22. #71

    User Info Menu

    Thanks to this thread, which I came across by coincidence a few weeks ago, I started to look into the 3nps "system". I always considered the 3nps system something for shredders and didn't really look into it. I used the CAGED major scale shapes. But listening to Henry (who sounds awesome!) and Jens Larsen (who also sounds awesome!) I suddenly realized that its just a way to view the neck, not a way of playing. So the pros of 3nps I have found:

    - In particular the consistency. For example, an interval and all its "modifications": flat, natural or sharp are always on the same string. This in contrast to the CAGED shapes. For example the 3 and b3 notes of a scale are not on the same string. Just like the 4 and the #4 and the 6 and b6. In the 3nps system you just have to change one fret up or down.This is a basic reference. If I understand Reg correctly he also always talks about this. He though, uses a slightly different fingering system.

    - Same thing applies to arpeggios. In the CAGED system the shapes for each arpeggio type can change pretty radically. In the 3nps its all the same, only the intervals change.

    - Another pro is that you see the fretboard more horizontal instead of boxed in.

    - You can easily derive harmonic and melodic minor scales. The CAGED harmonic and melodic minor don't really fit well IMO.

    Con though is that you always move out of position on the last two strings (B and E). Also the streching can be pretty hard on the hand but doing as Henry says makes it a litte bit easier. But playing the F major scale in first position is still pretty uncomfortable (now for....atleast). Another thing is that you need to memorize 7 positions instead of 5. Same with arpeggios. Another con is that the triad CAGED shapes don´ t really fit as nicely into the 3nps shapes. However, I view everything in intervals so its not really a big problem.

    All in all I think the 3nps is a nice approach. However we have to remember that the goal is to just see 1 big position all over the neck that lights up based on the harmonic context. Both CAGED and 3nps are, or should I say: should be, just an intermediate "phase" so pick whatever you like. But at the moment I like 3nps (might change later, who knows?) as you don't have to remember that much. You can derive stuff instead of memorizing it all.

    Just my two cents...

  23. #72

    User Info Menu

    Because of the consistency of the NPS there are only 3 hand shapes
    on a given string to play a major scale.

    whole step > whole step on scale degrees I, IV and V in major

    whole step > half step on scale degrees II and VI

    half step > whole step on scale degrees III and VII

    they connect in this way:

    I > IV (by half step)
    II > V (by whole step)
    III > VI (by whole step)
    IV > VII (by whole step)
    V > I (by half step)
    VI > II ((by whole step)
    VII > III (by whole step)

    3 hand shapes linked to each other via either a whole step or a half step.

    The same shapes can provide all the required content to play melodic minor.
    Whole tone uses only whole step > whole step while diminished alternates
    between half > whole and whole > half.

    Harmonic minor and major require 2 additional hand shapes for 3NPS
    that emerge from the augmented 2nd contained in both of those scales.

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    It’s unfortunate that some numbskulls at Berkeley started calling the 3NPS SPEED SCALES. That is just plain stupid, wrong and misinformation.

    7 degrees in the scale, 7 different scale patterns. Very logical and very systematic. And not tied to the “illogic” of being based on five open chord shapes. Five zones that don’t really hold together well as a single enclosed system. 7 scale patterns are ONE system. Everything is encased within clearly and logically.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  25. #74

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
    It’s unfortunate that some numbskulls at Berkeley started calling the 3NPS SPEED SCALES. That is just plain stupid, wrong and misinformation.

    7 degrees in the scale, 7 different scale patterns. Very logical and very systematic. And not tied to the “illogic” of being based on five open chord shapes. Five zones that don’t really hold together well as a single enclosed system. 7 scale patterns are ONE system. Everything is encased within clearly and logically.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Numbskulls! :-)

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    Numbskulls! :-)
    Lol. Yeah, well sorry! It’s NOT a speed scale. Now if you just want to play displaced triplets legato all day, OK. But no. Calling it that means you don’t know what it is.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  27. #76

    User Info Menu

    I've been working on 3 NPS fingerings daily for awhile now. I came up with CAGED (-though I never heard it called that.) I first heard about 3 NPS in a Frank Gambale book on, IIRC, "speed picking." But I didn't last long with that, mainly because although it is impressive to hear someone play guitar that fast, I wasn't wild about the music Frank generated and didn't want to play that sort of thing, so why bother?

    But that was short-sighted.

    Henry is right: although one can play these scales fast, that is not the main advantage of learning them. They map the fingerboard in a consistent way. That's the gold.
    "Learn the repertoire. It’s all in the songs. If you learn 200 songs, you will have no problem improvising."
    Frank Vignola

  28. #77

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    - In particular the consistency. For example, an interval and all its "modifications": flat, natural or sharp are always on the same string. This in contrast to the CAGED shapes. For example the 3 and b3 notes of a scale are not on the same string. Just like the 4 and the #4 and the 6 and b6. In the 3nps system you just have to change one fret up or down.This is a basic reference. If I understand Reg correctly he also always talks about this. He though, uses a slightly different fingering system.
    This is a great advantage to the 3NPS system. It is so consistent. I, however, am not! I learned many things with CAGED fingerings and sometimes "default" to them. As time passes, I won't get caught between the two systems.
    "Learn the repertoire. It’s all in the songs. If you learn 200 songs, you will have no problem improvising."
    Frank Vignola

  29. #78

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes View Post
    I've been working on 3 NPS fingerings daily for awhile now. I came up with CAGED (-though I never heard it called that.) I first heard about 3 NPS in a Frank Gambale book on, IIRC, "speed picking." But I didn't last long with that, mainly because although it is impressive to hear someone play guitar that fast, I wasn't wild about the music Frank generated and didn't want to play that sort of thing, so why bother?

    But that was short-sighted.

    Henry is right: although one can play these scales fast, that is not the main advantage of learning them. They map the fingerboard in a consistent way. That's the gold.
    Hey Mark,

    I saw that you were into the Steve Crowell learning materials. AFAIK he is also a huge proponent of 3nps right? How do you like the meterials so far?

  30. #79
    Looking at these for a minute today with an instrument, using Henry's guidelines for fingerings, it occurs to me but this is very analogous to the benefits of fourths tuning which is always mentioned, especially regarding consistency and intervals and fingering etc. In terms of branding, with "speed scales" etc, I'd say one of the biggest drawbacks to understanding what it's really about is the 3NPS moniker itself.

    You really get the impression that you're always starting on the first finger and that these fingerings are vastly different from other scale fingerings, while in reality they're about 60 to 70% the same as the fingerings used by William Leavitt. Of course, you can start from any finger and any note in the scale, And starting from other fingers , especially the second, immediately yields understanding to the similarities.

    I'd be interested to know how Henry, Jens, Nunez approach arpeggio fingerings in this context? Do you use the same finger and just address the shift regardless? is a G major seven arpeggio fingered with the same exact fingers for roots on the sixth, fifth, fourth and third strings, for example? Maybe that's not as much a thing, but its surface level, it certainly removes a lot of "roll" issues, simply by using a separate finger and shifting.

    Appreciate your thoughts.

  31. #80

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher View Post
    Looking at these for a minute today with an instrument, using Henry's guidelines for fingerings, it occurs to me but this is very analogous to the benefits of fourths tuning which is always mentioned, especially regarding consistency and intervals and fingering etc. In terms of branding, with "speed scales" etc, I'd say one of the biggest drawbacks to understanding what it's really about is the 3NPS moniker itself.

    You really get the impression that you're always starting on the first finger and that these fingerings are vastly different from other scale fingerings, while in reality they're about 60 to 70% the same as the fingerings used by William Leavitt. Of course, you can start from any finger and any note in the scale, And starting from other fingers , especially the second, immediately yields understanding to the similarities.

    I'd be interested to know how Henry, Jens, Nunez approach arpeggio fingerings in this context? Do you use the same finger and just address the shift regardless? is a G major seven arpeggio fingered with the same exact fingers for roots on the sixth, fifth, fourth and third strings, for example? Maybe that's not as much a thing, but its surface level, it certainly removes a lot of "roll" issues, simply by using a separate finger and shifting.

    Appreciate your thoughts.
    Hey Matt,

    Thanks for your post. Always like to read about the stuff you say 'bout the Reg fingerings and things you've learned from Reg in general. Do you think the 3NPS system has the same logic as Reg's fingerings? AFAIK Reg's fingerings also have the different "types" (flat, natural, sharp) on the same string correct?

    BTW for the arpeggios you can look at these fingerings: Pdf downloads and charts - Jens Larsen Although this doesn't fully answer your question ;p.

  32. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Do you think the 3NPS system has the same logic as Reg's fingerings? AFAIK Reg's fingerings also have the different "types" (flat, natural, sharp) on the same string correct?
    Thanks for the kind words and for posting the link. I'm not really following what you're asking , especially the second sentence , but the fingerings are largely the same, simply because fretboard is the same. Reg thinks of everything as starting from the second finger in each position, but of course there is a first finger note for each one of those available as well.

    3NPS fingerings are the same as Reg's, until you get to the would-be 2NPS location in the pattern (on the 2nd or 3rd string).

  33. #82

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher View Post
    Thanks for the kind words and for posting the link. I'm not really following what you're asking , especially the second sentence , but the fingerings are largely the same, simply because fretboard is the same. Reg thinks of everything as starting from the second finger in each position, but of course there is a first finger note for each one of those available as well.

    3NPS fingerings are the same as Reg's, until you get to the would-be 2NPS location in the pattern (on the 2nd or 3rd string).
    Ah sorry I submitted my message before checking it ;p. But you already kind of answered it .

    I meant that Reg's fingerings also have an interval and its "types": flat, natural, sharp on the same string like 3NPS? For ex: 4 and #4 are on the same string. This in constrast with the CAGED fingerings where the #4 in the E shape for example is on the B string while the 4 is on the G string.

  34. #83

    User Info Menu

    Yea, this helps tons.

    Thanks

  35. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Ah sorry I submitted my message before checking it ;p. But you already kind of answered it .

    I meant that Reg's fingerings also have an interval and its "types": flat, natural, sharp on the same string like 3NPS? For ex: 4 and #4 are on the same string. This in constrast with the CAGED fingerings where the #4 in the E shape for example is on the B string while the 4 is on the G string.
    Not necessarily. C Lydian in seventh position for example is going to have #4 on 2nd string. It's Ionian counterpart has nat4 on the 3rd string.

  36. #85

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Hey Mark,

    I saw that you were into the Steve Crowell learning materials. AFAIK he is also a huge proponent of 3nps right? How do you like the meterials so far?
    Yes, it's all 3 NPS. What he likes to do (in the beginning) is to link 4 arpeggios in each fingering. (One can play all seven arps in each fingering but that's another subject.) An advantage of this is that the fingerings and picking are consistent.

    I like it so far. One problem for me---an old dog capable of learning new tricks but it takes longer---is that I've learned a lot of things "the other way" and I wonder if I can fully commit to a new system.
    "Learn the repertoire. It’s all in the songs. If you learn 200 songs, you will have no problem improvising."
    Frank Vignola

  37. #86

    User Info Menu

    One of the things I like about Crowell's approach is that he links scales and arps in the seven fingerings. And he adds a few scale tones to arps to make lines. (He calls these "hyperextensions".) Concludes with a solo over the "Foggy Day" changes.

    "Learn the repertoire. It’s all in the songs. If you learn 200 songs, you will have no problem improvising."
    Frank Vignola

  38. #87

    User Info Menu

    Using C major scale as reference. You want to see 3NPS shapes from the nut to the last fret. You want to be able to play arpeggio’s from any note in the scale. In addition you should be able to run any combination of scale tones as a chord scale on the full range of the neck. A big beautiful piece of meat to sink your teeth into.

  39. #88

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by stark View Post
    Using C major scale as reference. You want to see 3NPS shapes from the nut to the last fret. You want to be able to play arpeggio’s from any note in the scale. In addition you should be able to run any combination of scale tones as a chord scale on the full range of the neck. A big beautiful piece of meat to sink your teeth into.
    Exactly.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  40. #89

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by stevehollx View Post
    I'm currently working on focusing on arpeggios so that I can hit chord tones in my playing more. I learned scales as three notes per string many years ago, so that's my foundation for how I visualize the fretboard. I figure the 3NPS approach is less favorable here, but hoping to get insight for players that do use it.

    I am interested in how players that use 3NPS approach are visualizing/playing arpeggios on the neck. Do people learn arpeggio positions within all 7 positions (which I guess consequentially would involve a range of up to 5 adjacent frets)? Or do you use the 5 (CAGED) positions for arpeggios, and just use 3NPS scales to 'fill in' notes between arpeggios?
    I work on learning all the positions which then leads to combining positions depending on how you are playing the arpeggios. I find new stuff all the time. I just found a new pattern from an Art Tatum solo (2 patterns) that I'm working on.

    Here is one example of a way to play the arpeggio that requires a slightly different fingering and combinations of positions. Playing 2nds on basic triad arpeggios similar to Paganini.
    So an Fm would be played Ab-F, C-Ab, F-C and so on. I go through the changes of All the Things, or some of them.
    There is tab also. You can see just like scales, you learn all the positions and any variations in fingering and when you work on a pattern it might require a new way to play the arpeggio and so on. They are just like the 5 pentatonic positions you lean them, learn a fw alternate fingerings then work on moving through positions.

    If you just play them straight the basic four positions are probably fine. But as I play through Art Tatum, Paganini, Bach etc..and find ideas to practice on arpeggios which require fingering things different for each idea. Like playing 4 notes at a time - F, Ab, C, F - Ab, C, F, Ab - C, F, Ab, C, there are specific ways to play that that makes it easier to play fast and it varies between players.

    Joel
    YouTube