The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Posts 76 to 89 of 89
  1. #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.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #77

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    - 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.

  4. #78

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
    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?

  5. #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.

  6. #80

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    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.

  7. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    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).

  8. #82

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    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.

  9. #83

    User Info Menu

    Yea, this helps tons.

    Thanks

  10. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    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.

  11. #85

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    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.

  12. #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.


  13. #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.

  14. #88

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by stark
    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

  15. #89

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by stevehollx
    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