The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Posts 51 to 75 of 192
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Danil
    Sure you can play it like this, but does it feel and sound to you - smooth, articulated and funky? It is not kind of a line which is ok to be played sloppy (and live tempo usually is faster).
    Here is another one, our keyboard player wants us to end Tenor Madness like this (I don't know where did he get it from, not from a guitar I bet):

    Attachment 79820
    For me, the key to this phrase is to play the third note, Bb, with your first finger and to play the next note, F, with your fourth finger - even though it's at the same fret. This is a position jump that can be made smoothly. Then you can articulate the Eb and D nicely. If you pick the F with your third finger, it's easier to slide into the D. Nothing wrong with that: you'll hear the slide - you might prefer that sound.
    Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 03-04-2021 at 07:03 PM.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Danil
    Sure you can play it like this, but does it feel and sound to you - smooth, articulated and funky? It is not kind of a line which is ok to be played sloppy (and live tempo usually is faster).
    Here is another one, our keyboard player wants us to end Tenor Madness like this (I don't know where did he get it from, not from a guitar I bet):

    Attachment 79820


    This one arguably tolerates some sloppiness, but still with rolling and economy picking/sweeping it is much more playable and natural (and thus sounds better).

    Of all Troy's interviews the most valuable to me is the one with a mandolin/guitar player (Andy Wood?) where he says that he hears a piece of music and then looks for a way to execute so it would sound right - making adjustments to technique, etc. The music drives the technique, not the other way around.

    I would say, actually this holds true to a certain extent for each of those accomplished players -- they were after a certain style/sound which defined their technique.

    The classical guitar is a very different instrument -- much higher action and effort/precision to get tone, very different sound and kind of music, naturally they have different approaches to the same sequences of notes.

    In a summary I would vote for keeping every bit of various techniques, also need to mention that they seem to help each other even when unrelated (sort of elasticity of brain/hands or something like that)
    I prefer the control separate fingers gives. It feels less sloppy to me. Awkward at first but getting more natural. It’s not practicable for all speeds. That’s ok too. It’s generally the middle kind of speed where I want to have more control anyway.

    im not sure what you want from me lol. I can go back to playing with barres if it makes you feel better I suppose.

    This is all tangential to fretboard mapping anyway. I use the same shapes, I just use different fingers to how I used to.
    Last edited by christianm77; 03-04-2021 at 06:40 PM.

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77

    im not sure what you want from me lol. I can go back to playing with barres if it makes you feel better I suppose.

    This is all tangential to fretboard mapping anyway. I use the same shapes, I just use different fingers to how I used to.
    Yes, I admit I hijacked the thread, hopefully now the urge has passed and I'm not to bother anyone with this for a while.

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Danil
    Yes, I admit I hijacked the thread, hopefully now the urge has passed and I'm not to bother anyone with this for a while.
    Ha maybe! Look I don’t think there’s one way to do it; while there are many poor strategies there are also a multiplicity of effective ones.

    There’s pros and cons and I think I’ve always found value in exploring different things.

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    Yeah that's why I've never really been into CAGED or 7-position system or whatever. I need to map the fretboard in my mind, but for fingering, I figure it will come with exploring things I want to play. We're not just shredding on diatonic scale tones.

    I know what notes I want, I just need to be able to find them. As you say, piano was easier for that due to every octave being the same. Mind you switching from key of D to E-flat would throw a wrench in your fingering there, but at least the notes are still obvious.

  7. #56
    My perception of Reg's scale fingerings - from someone who doesn't have the discipline or the attention span to put in the time they deserve - is that they're trying to help us be like a piano by providing an absolute visual landmark for how we approach the notes on our instrument.

    Piano is easy. It's one dimensional, with an asymmetrical pattern that makes it super easy to play a note, look at it, and go "oh, okay, that's G sharp because it's the black key after the first instance of unseperated white keys. Cool.", which also means that if you want to play that note, it's easy to find it.

    The guitar neck is two dimensional and there's no real easy visual pattern for finding things. Reg's system gives us 7 repeating reference points on the 6th string that we can use to help find and figure out where notes are on the fretboard without having to think about it - "Alright, I'm on the second finger reference of C, G flat is the next string with my ring finger." The fact that the intervals are preserved is nice, too.

    Obviously once you'd put in the work, this stuff becomes so second nature that you don't have to think about it any more and you can use any fingering you want. But the goal of the system - and the reason I think it's so great - is that it's a systematic way to learn the locations of the notes on the fretboard using easy to find landmarks.

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow of the Sun
    My perception of Reg's scale fingerings - from someone who doesn't have the discipline or the attention span to put in the time they deserve - is that they're trying to help us be like a piano by providing an absolute visual landmark for how we approach the notes on our instrument.

    Piano is easy. It's one dimensional, with an asymmetrical pattern that makes it super easy to play a note, look at it, and go "oh, okay, that's G sharp because it's the black key after the first instance of unseperated white keys. Cool.", which also means that if you want to play that note, it's easy to find it.

    The guitar neck is two dimensional and there's no real easy visual pattern for finding things. Reg's system gives us 7 repeating reference points on the 6th string that we can use to help find and figure out where notes are on the fretboard without having to think about it - "Alright, I'm on the second finger reference of C, G flat is the next string with my ring finger." The fact that the intervals are preserved is nice, too.

    Obviously once you'd put in the work, this stuff becomes so second nature that you don't have to think about it any more and you can use any fingering you want. But the goal of the system - and the reason I think it's so great - is that it's a systematic way to learn the locations of the notes on the fretboard using easy to find landmarks.

    1. OK, so how is that different or superior to CAGED? (The CAGED fingerings likewise connect with each other and there is no "fretboard blank space" in between).

    2. And if it's superior to CAGED, is it likewise inferior to 9 or 12 fingerings such as Leavitt described/defined? (Leavitt's fingerings being the superset of "Reg's" fingerings).

    3. Final question - How in the world did I get through this post without using the word "reference"?

  9. #58
    The way I see most people use the CAGED system is that it's a movable reference, where you use the root on a given string and then make the scales around it. That is not how I personally approach Reg's system, nor how I believe most of the advocates use it. With Reg's system, I use the 7 "landmarks" as fixed references, figure out the notes around them, and then sharpen and flatten the notes to fit the scale, more akin to how a piano player does.

    Basically, I see CAGED as a system with movable roots and positions, whereas Reg's system is about using fixed notes on the 6th string to map out the neck and then treating it like the piano keyboard and chosing the notes you play rather than just playing the pattern.

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    Wow that actually makes sense.

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    One thing; I would like to close the gap between the positions I use to improvise and the positions I use to read. There should be no difference.

    Like I suspect many players I learned to read in fixed positions but improvise primarily in positions built around chord shapes. So I think that’s something a lot of people have to find a way to address.

  12. #61
    Hello all! Apologies for my absence in this thread. Was pretty busy but lets be honest I'm just a lazy SOB ;p. Thanks everybody for their contributions! Some really interesting posts!


    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    I haven't worked on Reg's approach so I can't really comment about the details. He's a great player. He has lots of great videos in which you can see the fruits of his approach.

    Mine is a minority view. My approach is to learn the notes, by name, in all the chords and scales you use, in all 12 keys. And, know every note on the fingerboard instantly. This is a lot of work, but so is every other way of getting there.

    It has the advantage of not using geometric patterns, although you may want to add them to the approach -- that helps with fast tempos. Basically, you're playing a chord and/or scale and the fretboard lights up in your mind. Every note in the arp and every note in the scale light up in different colors all over the neck and your fingers find them.

    I don't see how this can hurt, even if you're using Reg's fingerings or some other system. In fact, I'd guess (and I'm confident Reg will be kind enough to tell us) that Reg also knows the fretboard in this way.
    Hey RP,

    I completely agree with you. Up until like a year ago I was really a fan of the shapes approach (knowing the shape but also the intervals of the notes). However, some things are still very difficult to see with this way of thinking. Voice leading for example, looking at that from a interval per chord basis is pretty difficult. Take F Fm C for example. Interesting is ofcourse the line A Ab G. However when you think in intervals its 3 b3 5 which doesn't really show the voice leading movements that makes this chord progression really what it is. Only thinking in note names makes this possible. In addition, most other instrumentalists know their note names. Pianists, horns etc. Guitarists (generally speaking) don't. The guitar is great as it can be approached geometrically, the guitar sucks as it can approached geometrically :P.

    In the long term I think its best to really know the note names. Its also way more fundamental and transferable. Lets say if I want to learn to play the piano. If I already know all the notes in all the chords and scales it will be much easier. Only knowing fretboard patterns is not.

    I'm definitely going to jam over some tracks and say the notes out loud. Another thing I will do is use Anki (software that lets you create flash cards) to drill the notes in all keys and chords.

    Reg's fingering system is not mutually exclusive to this approach IMO. I think it actually complements it. As Shadow of the Sun points out, it makes you have " repeating reference points on the 6th string that we can use to help find and figure out where notes are on the fretboard without having to think about it". It helps with learning the notes instead of thinking of patterns IMO.


    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    Lark, sorry I missed this previously. Thanks for the message.
    First, far from being incoherent, I think you communicate excellently with English, not just grammatically, but in deeply exploring and abstracting complex ideas and concepts.

    To question #1, absolutely, yes. There's more, to be sure, but it's complicated, because the attempt to abstract a deeply subjective, and profoundly kinesthetic and visual "understanding" of something of this complexity is no simple task. Words don't do it justice, and many are apt to dismiss it on the face of its surface-level verbal/symbolic representation.

    To question #2: I think you're on the right track. It's somewhat personal - and more related to actual practice (in both senses of the word) than to simple verbal thought. So, I'll just speak from personal experience/understanding re the Second Finger Reference (SFR). I'm going to use a different example, for simplicity's sake, and just talk about G major for a moment. I'll use Reg's B-Phyrgian position, for a few differnt reasons: 1) Because it's the least familiar, 2) because it's the most removed (cyclically) from traditional maj/min scale fingerings and 3) because it illustrates something important about mapping the fretboard chromatically.

    First of all, if you approach learning fingerings this way, these fingerings become the "bottom level" of analysis, not in terms of tonal music theory, but in terms of fretboard layout. So, in that position especially, I go to thinking in terms of B rather than "G from a 1st-finger-stretch root". Gmaj7 in this position is somewhat of a Bm7 chord, both theoretically and visually/kinesthetically. B-D-F# are all chord tones from B, and only the G (b13 of B) is somewhat foreign to a newcomer. I would argue, at the very least, that most experienced players "think" Bm faster from this position than Gmajor, regardless of time put in. I would speculate that this only "clicks" at a very high level of experience and understanding, at which point you are subconsciously viewing things in the same "SFR manner" anyway. From what I can understand, Reg's purpose with the SFR is to promote this manner of seeing/hearing/thinking from the beginning, rather than as a random artifact of 1000's of hours on the instrument.

    So, when I woodshed Gmaj and Gmaj7 melodic patterns for our Patterns for Jazz group, thinking of that position in (physical) terms of a Bm chord (with added b13). When there were technical breakdowns with more difficult (chromatic etc) patterns in that position, I defaulted to thinking more in terms of Bm (again physically/not necessarily "modally"). Honestly, this B Phrygian fingering is a good gateway for the curious, again because it is "foreign enough" to disrupt automatic pattern/position thought processes associated with more familiar fingerings. After discovering some of this, I started doing more work on trying to clean up my capacity to see/think from the SFR perspective in other positions.

    I find this perspective to be particularly helpful in "viewing" would-be 4th finger arpeggios in all positions and all chord types. So, you practice learning to think of D7 for example, beginning on C (2nd finger; "Lydian position") as if it's a type of "C" chord. The benefits are multi-level honestly. It certainly doesn't "replace" prior knowledge. It simply adds a layer of understanding, theoretically sure, but more importantly a different "kinesthetic understanding". My hands respond differently when thinking from C versus thinking D7 from the 4th finger. Anyway, that's a lot of words to describe something that is 99.9999% non-verbal, but honestly, there's nothing to be done about that other than to actually explore the playing/visualizing aspects of this concept.

    So, if I'm working on something in that position which is more difficult, I am able to go back to that bottom level of viewing notes/intervals from the context of B, rather than a G "root note" from a 1st-finger-stretch. Thinking of this position is helpful for the aspect that it is probably the most alien to those of us who have played for a while. This position has given me more insight into the positive benefits of the second finger reference (2FR), because I didn't previously "think" in this position from years of prior practice.

    I feel that it also needs to be expressed that, with completion of the Phrygian fingering, you have a physical reference for all 12 tones chromatically, from any given position on the fretboard, and each one of those is a concrete diatonic reference from one of the fingerings. 5 fingerings don't cover these in-position, and a purely chromatic viewpoint of potential stretches from fingers 1 or 4 produce numerous unisons and "choices to be made" about where chromatic notes should be played. Reg's fingerings reduce the choices to 1, eliminating unisons and other "choice issues", at least it pertains to "defaults". You can, of course, finger things other ways as well. But that mental clarity and simplification is no small thing. Its benefits related to sightreading alone make it well worth considering.

    To question #3. Yes, but they’re going to keep chasing it. It’s current versions don’t have the original title keywords. Download it (and its siblings), and for the good of all mankind, upload it to Odysee/ Lbry.tv or somesuch. Youtube search on terms “Rosenwinkel workshop” and similar to find all. I think “R0senwinke1 w0rk5h@p” now yields nothing. (These videos have turned me into an insurrectionist I guess. I think they should be out there and available.)


    To “Reg approach” naysayers, I’d suggest that you watch the Kurt video and honestly ask whether you believe that he (or reg) are primarily referring to modal understanding (or modal playing), or are they mostly describing a more basic physical understanding. Modal understanding and hearing is only one level of analysis and not unimportant. It may arguably not be the most important initially, but that doesn’t change the fact that you’d have to somewhat work modal approaches separately later, if not integrated as “arbitrary fingering labels” in the beginning.

    Stretch fingerings in and of themselves are somewhat of a separate issue to the thought process, but to be fair, there is a direct correlation to the ideas validity and the use of shifts (resulting in fewer constants). Again, please listen to Kurt’s actual words on thought process regarding position etc.

    To question #4, I mostly answered with a lot of my thought process on this in #2. Simply understand that you still have to woodshed things somewhat separately, but it’s different when you view arpeggios as variations of a "parent" position-arpeggio.

    Thank you so very much Matt! Hahaha, will definitely need some time to fully digest this post. Will post a full reply if I'm done ;p. And indeed, when I looked at Reg's fingerings I never considered the physical understanding part. I was mostly looking at the musical understanding (intervals etc.). On the piano it looks like this physical aspect is much more emphasized. Also thank you so very much for the Kurt Rosenwinkle video, I will save it ASAP . I only now really understands his explanation, it wasn't clear to me how it differed from other fingering systems. Interesting is how he calls a position the "G position" or the "A position". I first thought he meant the complete G major shape in that position but he refers to his middle finger is on the G or A note. So when he plays G Dorian with his middle finger on the 3rd fret he is still in the G position . It is more of a physical thing than a "musical" (for lack of a better therm) thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow of the Sun
    My perception of Reg's scale fingerings - from someone who doesn't have the discipline or the attention span to put in the time they deserve - is that they're trying to help us be like a piano by providing an absolute visual landmark for how we approach the notes on our instrument.

    Piano is easy. It's one dimensional, with an asymmetrical pattern that makes it super easy to play a note, look at it, and go "oh, okay, that's G sharp because it's the black key after the first instance of unseperated white keys. Cool.", which also means that if you want to play that note, it's easy to find it.

    The guitar neck is two dimensional and there's no real easy visual pattern for finding things. Reg's system gives us 7 repeating reference points on the 6th string that we can use to help find and figure out where notes are on the fretboard without having to think about it - "Alright, I'm on the second finger reference of C, G flat is the next string with my ring finger." The fact that the intervals are preserved is nice, too.

    Obviously once you'd put in the work, this stuff becomes so second nature that you don't have to think about it any more and you can use any fingering you want. But the goal of the system - and the reason I think it's so great - is that it's a systematic way to learn the locations of the notes on the fretboard using easy to find landmarks.
    Wow! This is exactly what I tried to convey in my opening post but you worded it much more concise and eloquently! I should replace my OP with this text . It took a lot of time for me to finally see this! It required a shift in my thinking of looking at everything from the internal/relative perspective to a more absolute perspective (note names).

    How do you visualize arpeggios and other modes if I may ask? Say, middle finger on the G 3rd fret 6th string (low E). Then you want to play C major, what is your thought process? Is it like you know the notes of the scale? C D E F G A B? Or do you think of something else?

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
    1. OK, so how is that different or superior to CAGED? (The CAGED fingerings likewise connect with each other and there is no "fretboard blank space" in between).

    2. And if it's superior to CAGED, is it likewise inferior to 9 or 12 fingerings such as Leavitt described/defined? (Leavitt's fingerings being the superset of "Reg's" fingerings).

    3. Final question - How in the world did I get through this post without using the word "reference"?
    Again Shadow of the Sun's reply is probably much easier to understand but since I started this thread ;p..... Lets say you play a G major scale E shape. Your middle finger is on the G note on the sixth string. You play the pattern you know. Now, play a F major scale but stay in the same position. Using the CAGED system you will probably need to "rethink/repaint" your fretboard since instead of G now F is the reference point. The other notes are build around that F note. This can be quite mentally taxing IMO. Also note that you will now play the G on the sixth string with your index finger instead of your middle finger as you are using the F major D shape CAGED pattern. So there is this constant switch of a reference point. Using the Reg fingerings you want keep the middle finger on the G and just flatten the F# and flatten the B but the G stays your point of reference.

  13. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Yeah, I think no that’s right. so there’s a fair amount to talk about here, but the important thing is that the fingering must reflect the phrasing.

    So an added note scale is a musical phrase. It doesn’t make any sense to put the B on a different string to the Bb when descending, or break up neighbour tone/chord tone groups onto different strings (unless they make sense with the phrasing.)

    I think trying to practice added note scales in traditional positions might not be the most useful thing to do.

    so you reference slurring into the beat which is connected to that.

    Again one octave cells help a lot.

    I really think conventional positions get abandoned pretty quickly when I have to play actual jazz phrases.

    in terms of reps for learning, there’s a lot to unpack there. I’ll leave a link for you to find out more about interleaved practice (assuming you haven’t already looked into it).
    The application of spacing and interleaving approaches in the classroom | impact.chartered.college
    That link is very interesting! AFAIK you are doing a Master's in music education right (please correct me if I'm wrong ;p)? Could you please share more about efficient practice methods? Lol, maybe we should create a separate thread ;p.

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    That link is very interesting! AFAIK you are doing a Master's in music education right (please correct me if I'm wrong ;p)? Could you please share more about efficient practice methods? Lol, maybe we should create a separate thread ;p.
    I am, final year now!

    sounds good! Let’s do a practice thread. The only thing is a lot of threads obsess about what to practice.. that really varies player to player, so I find it a bit of a pointless discussion... but *how* one practices is an interesting area.

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    I certainly concede the main point behind these systems, that the nature of the guitar makes it easier to see relative interval relationships rather than absolute notes. Having both is of course the golden mean. I haven't looked into his system yet, but Tom Quayle also has an intervallic approach to finding your way around the fretboard.

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow of the Sun
    The way I see most people use the CAGED system is that it's a movable reference, where you use the root on a given string and then make the scales around it. That is not how I personally approach Reg's system, nor how I believe most of the advocates use it. With Reg's system, I use the 7 "landmarks" as fixed references, figure out the notes around them, and then sharpen and flatten the notes to fit the scale, more akin to how a piano player does.

    Basically, I see CAGED as a system with movable roots and positions, whereas Reg's system is about using fixed notes on the 6th string to map out the neck and then treating it like the piano keyboard and chosing the notes you play rather than just playing the pattern.
    In my opinion it's partly physical, but also very mental. I think it has a lot to do with how one chooses to think about and visual it.

    Firstly, no offense to Reg, who is a gentleman and fine musician.

    But -

    1. So and so's fingerings: It's not "Reg's" system, nor his fingerings. I don't know if it/they belong to anyone but if they do, it's probably Bill Leavitt. Reg prefers a subset of Leavitt's 12 fingerings. One could ask - "who doesn't"?

    2. Moveable reference: All fingerings other than open position fingerings are moveable. For chords, scales, and arpeggios.

    3. So-called CAGED fingerings: A few of the so-called CAGED fingerings date back 200 years to Sor and Carcassi, at least. Non-stretch, comfortable fingerings. And yes, moveable. Did they refer to them as CAGED back then? Nope. Were they conceived from chord forms? Hmmm.

    4. Stretch vs. non-stretch scale fingerings - We can take most moveable scale fingerings and alter them by stretching up or back for a higher or lower note - OR - we can shift to play those notes. It's a choice.

    5. Mental process and Diatonic scale fingerings - Using the major scale as a baseline reference for thinking about/visualizing minor scales is mentally useful. That visualization approach can be applied to modes as well. If we stretch to reach the different notes there's less to memorize, less to think about - plus we become more cognizant of the differences in the various scales/modes because we see them as variations on a theme, so to speak. Intellectually speaking, that's efficient, that's all to the good.

    6. Physical realities of Finger stretching - stretching is part of guitar playing, but how much stretching is the question/concern. Generally speaking, a lot of stretching is hard on the hands. We want to take care of our hands for the long haul. Factors like scale length, size of hands, and position on the fretboard (i.e. low vs. high) all come into play of course.

    When it comes to the odd chord here and there stretching is one thing, but when it comes to scales and arpeggios it's another thing altogether. We may not practice scales 2 hours a day like Segovia advised, but we might play scales/arpeggios/melodies more than 2 hours a day. Put another way, when Barney Kessell was practicing 5 hours per day how much of that time was spent on chords? (The same question goes for any other master jazz guitarist).

    7. Too much information and mental fog associated with many scale and arpeggio fingerings: When we use non-stretch fingerings for scales/modes/arpeggios we have a little bit more information to memorize (the shifts that is). Since we can't learn them all at once we build up a stack of information over time. Mentally speaking we increase our load. We think about and practice them seperately.

    So can we have our cake and eat it too? That is, can we use hand-friendly non-stretch fingerings without having a super computer for a brain?

    Yes. One way to have things come together (mentally) as opposed to stay apart is to practice scales and modes in one position before moving to the next. In other words for a given position play all scales/modes from the same root on the same string/fret. That can be done with stretch or non-stretch fingerings. When we do this the different notes start to stand out in our minds. It's a matter of how we practice. The same should be done with arpeggios. (see Leavitt's arpeggio drills in Volume 3).

    8. Is stretching superior? Django had 2 fingers so had to shift like nobody's business. Wes didn't use his pinky as much as many others do, so likewise shifted a lot. People will tell you that those were the two greatest jazz guitarists of all time.

    9. The utility of 6-string scale fingerings. Most jazz lines move an octave OR LESS before moving in the opposite direction, at least for a few notes. The overall range of a melody may span several octaves but most lines retreat slightly up or back before moving higher or lower into another octave. What's the point? The point is that guitarists don't focus on one-octave fingerings enough. I believe that Christian M. touched on that very topic here recently.

    A Berklee instructor made a point to beginning jazz guitarists to the effect of "you are probably going to start every idea from the root and on the 6th string, but I don't want you to do that".

    Ask yourself, what percentage of notes are played on string set 6/5/4 in a typical jazz guitar solo? What percentage of notes are played on the 6th string in a jazz guitar solo? I don't know but will hazard a guess that it's less than 3%.

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    Again Shadow of the Sun's reply is probably much easier to understand but since I started this thread ;p..... Lets say you play a G major scale E shape. Your middle finger is on the G note on the sixth string. You play the pattern you know. Now, play a F major scale but stay in the same position. Using the CAGED system you will probably need to "rethink/repaint" your fretboard since instead of G now F is the reference point. The other notes are build around that F note. This can be quite mentally taxing IMO. Also note that you will now play the G on the sixth string with your index finger instead of your middle finger as you are using the F major D shape CAGED pattern. So there is this constant switch of a reference point. Using the Reg fingerings you want keep the middle finger on the G and just flatten the F# and flatten the B but the G stays your point of reference.
    This is the clearest explanation I've seen. I'm still unclear what "repeating reference points" are. What is repeating about them?

    I can tell from hearing Reg play that his system works, but I'm going to post here why I didn't think a pattern based approach made sense for me. Mostly, it's because I couldn't easily memorize multiple geometric patterns. But, there was some additional logic that supported using a note based approach.

    When I tried to learn patterns, I was root bound. If I learned a pattern, I usually started on the 6th string and played the pattern in order of ascending pitch. Later, when I wanted to use the pattern in a song, I'd find it easy to start on the 6th string note, as usual, and much harder to start somewhere in the middle of the pattern. This did not help me with something as easy as, say, switching from G7 to C7.

    So, I thought, suppose I want to master the G7-C7? At the time, I was trying to use four sixth-string-based patterns for G7 (or any 7th chord)-- starting, respectively, on G B D F. So I'd need to know four fingering patterns for G7. And, I'd have to practice each one of them in ascending sequence, thirds, fourths etc to the point where I could start anywhere within the pattern. Then, when it came to switch to C7, I could use the same four patterns.

    A complication was introduced because I had also practiced patterns starting on the 5th string, which made everything more confusing. And, 4 patterns per chord may not be enough for comprehensive coverage of the fingerboard. What happens if you finished D7 at the 5th fret and want to play C7 at the fifth fret -- so you'd like to play G7 at the 5th fret in between. The patterns are at the 3rd and 7th frets based on a 6th string starting point. What you need, I guess, is a 5th string starting point on the D or F.

    It also occurred to me that G7 to C7 on piano is all white keys for G7 and then flatten the B to Bb for C7. You want to outline the sound of the change, make that B->Bb clear. But, the patterns gave me no insight into that. And, if that C7 led to an Fmaj7, the pattern didn't tell me that the notes would be the same as the C7 notes, except emphasizing different ones.

    The epiphany came when I realized that I could readily improvise on Cmaj7 using a C scale. I knew where all the notes of a C scale are on the guitar because I knew how to read. And, I could play in F, because I knew to flat the B. And G, because I knew to sharp the F.

    But, not F#, because I couldn't instantly identify the notes. Or G#. You don't see songs written in G#, but you do see chords like G#m7. If you have to think "G# is the same as Ab and I know Ab" you're too late. They all have to be instantaneous.

    So, I thought, it will be a lot of work to learn all the note names in every key, arp and scale I use. But, it would be even harder to do it with a pattern based approach. So I started drilling it. And, for chords with alterations, it seemed easier to find them by name rather than pattern.

    Eventually, the advantages started piling up. One advantage is that it is easy to see the voice leading. If you know the notes you want you can instantly identify what changes from one chord to the next in a song. That's true for soloing, and it's also true for comping. Suddenly it became easy to comp in chord fragments rather than having to rely solely on grips.

    It became easy to play on a chord with alterations because the altered notes (and their location) were obvious.

    Where the system falls down a bit is at high tempo. Then, having practiced patterns and licks helps. I accepted this limitation because I am not as interested in playing high tempo as I should be, I don't hear the music that way and I have limited chops. I'd like to be able to play better, faster, but I ended up thinking that I'd rather devote my time to other aspects of playing.

    I'm well aware that many great players did not do it my way.

    If I were still teaching, I'd include learning to read early on. And, then maybe introduce improvisation one key at a time, to the extent possible.

  18. #67
    Ok. CAGED isn't a "method" or "system", just as EGBDF isn't a "method". It wasn't designed by single person. It's the natural result of the way notes layout on the fretboard.

    In the same way, if you formulate scale fingerings based on shifts you're going to arrive at the same thing almost every time. The same is true for stretch fingerings. If you follow the basic protocol for how to address scale fingering using stretches, you are going to end up with the same fingerings as reg or Leavitt

    Reg and others i have talked to on the forum over the years claim to have arrived at these fingerings on their own, and I'm not going to question that. They predate his arrival at Berklee. Off the top of my head, wolfen shares the same experience. I'm not going to call them liars. They're real people , and they exist on this platform. Reg has shared tons of actual playing here as well.

    Again, William Leavitt's OWN breakdown of "evolution of scale fingerings" or somesuch in volume 3 illustrate how these are naturally occurring. Levitt deserves absolute credit for organizing them and systematizing a way of thinking cycling through them. He didn't "invent them", but he gave them a name and popularized them in publishing his work and deserves credit for that aspect.

    Stretches versus shifts has been talked about forever. They both have their strengths and weaknesses.

    While it's true that CAGED is "repeating" and covers the entire fretboard in a sense, tart simple statement misses. many of the implications made about stretch fingerings. positive aspects have to be acknowledged in addition to aspects of it being more difficult to finger etc. surface level statement of them "both being repeating patterns" fails to acknowledge that.

    In CAGED, for example, there are three major chord analogs, starting from the second finger/ sixth string which work for three major chords in the scale. In the other fingering protocol, the same is true for the three minor chords as well. Mixolydian and Dorian are analogous in the same way that they are on the piano . Only one degree of separation for the one changed pitch. Beings which are "mostly the same" are played and represented that way , rather then having to be started from a completely different finger.

    It's reasonable to question whether it's "worth it" with stretches to achieve this, but it's not reasonable to suggest that this is no difference at all.

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher

    Reg and others i have talked to on the forum over the years claim to have arrived at these fingerings on their own, and I'm not going to question that. They predate his arrival at Berklee. Off the top of my head, wolfen shares the same experience. I'm not going to call them liars. They're real people , and they exist on this platform. Reg has shared tons of actual playing here as well.


    Leon White in his book Styles for the Studio (1976) showed the same seven patterns but utilizing primarily 4th finger stretches. He has claimed on this forum and elsewhere that the fingerings were born out of the necessity for having to do a lot of sight reading.

    I worked out the alternate fingerings (1st finger stretches) on my own. For my own approach, I find 4th finger stretches facilitate playing in major modes while 1st finger stretches facilitate playing in minor modes.


    .

  20. #69

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    Ok. CAGED isn't a "method" or "system", just as EGBDF isn't a "method". It wasn't designed by single person. It's the natural result of the way notes layout on the fretboard.

    In the same way, if you formulate scale fingerings based on shifts you're going to arrive at the same thing almost every time. The same is true for stretch fingerings. If you follow the basic protocol for how to address scale fingering using stretches, you are going to end up with the same fingerings as reg or Leavitt

    Reg and others i have talked to on the forum over the years claim to have arrived at these fingerings on their own, and I'm not going to question that. They predate his arrival at Berklee. Off the top of my head, wolfen shares the same experience. I'm not going to call them liars. They're real people , and they exist on this platform. Reg has shared tons of actual playing here as well.

    Again, William Leavitt's OWN breakdown of "evolution of scale fingerings" or somesuch in volume 3 illustrate how these are naturally occurring. Levitt deserves absolute credit for organizing them and systematizing a way of thinking cycling through them. He didn't "invent them", but he gave them a name and popularized them in publishing his work and deserves credit for that aspect.

    Stretches versus shifts has been talked about forever. They both have their strengths and weaknesses.

    While it's true that CAGED is "repeating" and covers the entire fretboard in a sense, tart simple statement misses. many of the implications made about stretch fingerings. positive aspects have to be acknowledged in addition to aspects of it being more difficult to finger etc. surface level statement of them "both being repeating patterns" fails to acknowledge that.

    In CAGED, for example, there are three major chord analogs, starting from the second finger/ sixth string which work for three major chords in the scale. In the other fingering protocol, the same is true for the three minor chords as well. Mixolydian and Dorian are analogous in the same way that they are on the piano . Only one degree of separation for the one changed pitch. Beings which are "mostly the same" are played and represented that way , rather then having to be started from a completely different finger.

    It's reasonable to question whether it's "worth it" with stretches to achieve this, but it's not reasonable to suggest that this is no difference at all.

    Thanks for your thoughts Matt.

    There are other stretch fingerings that are not Leavitt's so I can't agree that a person would end up where he did.

    And I'm certainly not saying there is no difference. I'm just saying that stretches for everything under the sun is bad news for one's hands. I played all of Leavitt's diatonic and symmetrical scale fingerings for years so I'm not just imagining what it might be like. I have size 14 shoes and fairly big hands, but I also play long scale guitars. The Leavitt fingerings were cute in my early 20s. Later on, not so much. Did I pound my scales? Yes, was taught to.

    In my opinion any 6th string/2nd finger "reference" for a minor scale/mode/arpeggio is bad news because it has a player endlessly stretching two frets between the 1rst and 2nd fingers, no matter where they are on the neck. That's bad news.

    All of this is just an opinion of course, but as someone said above, if I were still teaching I would steer my students away from stretch fingerings (even though I didn't back then). I drank the factory kool-aid.

  21. #70

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by FwLineberry
    Leon White in his book Styles for the Studio (1976) showed the same seven patterns but utilizing primarily 4th finger stretches. He has claimed on this forum and elsewhere that the fingerings were born out of the necessity for having to do a lot of sight reading.

    I worked out the alternate fingerings (1st finger stretches) on my own. For my own approach, I find 4th finger stretches facilitate playing in major modes while 1st finger stretches facilitate playing in minor modes.


    .
    I believe that sight reading support was very important for Leavitt's fingerings as well.

    Aaron Shearer has at least one and perhaps two 4th finger stretch fingerings as I recall, but advised they be used in higher fretboard positions. That makes good sense to me.

    In fact one might go so far as to say that a few stretch fingerings are preferred above the 12th fret because things get bunchy up there.

  22. #71

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
    I believe that sight reading support was very important for Leavitt's fingerings as well.

    Aaron Shearer has at least one and perhaps two 4th finger stretch fingerings as I recall, but advised they be used in higher fretboard positions. That makes good sense to me.

    In fact one might go so far as to say that a few stretch fingerings are preferred above the 12th fret because things get bunchy up there.
    I read all the time, playing in horn bands with the guitar voiced as a horn, big bands, and groups playing originals and other stuff that I've never seen before.

    But, at no time have I ever thought about a fingering pattern when trying to read something. It wouldn't occur to me. I don't understand why other players (some who read for a living) think that way.

    It works like this. If the passage is slow or otherwise easy enough, you can play it any which way. If it's faster or harder in some other way (e.g. big jumps, wide range, lays poorly) then you have to look at the notes and figure out how to make them playable. If the notes lay well on the instrument you won't have to think about a fingering pattern and if they don't lay well, a fingering pattern won't help. In fact, the problems are usually in the right hand unless you're really got sweeping down pat.

    As far as stretching goes, I'd say this. One of the mitigating factors is that is it surprisingly quick to move your entire left hand as you need out-of-position notes. When I first learned 3nps scales (Chuck Wayne style) it didn't occur to me to move my left hand -- I tried to do it by trying to separate my fingers further. Later, I stopped using 3nps fingerings for the most part - too uncomfortable. BTW, I met Chuck many years ago and shook hands with him. It didn't occur to me to measure his hands, but they were probably bigger than mine.
    Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 03-06-2021 at 05:16 PM.

  23. #72

    User Info Menu

    You beat me to it rpjazzguitar.

    I learned sight reading in positions, but now I think perhaps the most important thing is knowing where the notes are on the neck (duh!) and being able to recognise familiar shapes, for example, common voicings, scales and arpeggios. These should be played in precisely the same way as you normally would, whatever they are.

    Easily said...

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    You beat me to it rpjazzguitar.

    I learned sight reading in positions, but now I think perhaps the most important thing is knowing where the notes are on the neck (duh!) and being able to recognise familiar shapes, for example, common voicings, scales and arpeggios. These should be played in precisely the same way as you normally would, whatever they are.

    Easily said...
    Just to amplify the point. Suppose the first two notes you want to play are G (same pitch as the open string) and B (a third up).

    So, I might put my second finger on G on the D-string and play the B with my first finger on the G string.

    But, if the first two notes are G and A, then I might put my first finger on the G and play the A with my third finger.

    If I was playing lower down on the neck, I might start with my fourth finger at the fifth fret. Or, higher up, some other way. It would depend on the passage before and the passage after.

    How does a fingering help?

    If the answer is, it helps you find the notes, my view is that it would probably worth the investment of time and energy to learn them all cold -- by learning to read.

  25. #74

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    Just to amplify the point. Suppose the first two notes you want to play are G (same pitch as the open string) and B (a third up).

    So, I might put my second finger on G on the D-string and play the B with my first finger on the G string.

    But, if the first two notes are G and A, then I might put my first finger on the G and play the A with my third finger.

    If I was playing lower down on the neck, I might start with my fourth finger at the fifth fret. Or, higher up, some other way. It would depend on the passage before and the passage after.

    How does a fingering help?

    If the answer is, it helps you find the notes, my view is that it would probably worth the investment of time and energy to learn them all cold -- by learning to read.
    Well I think this relates to discrete separation between note knowledge and fingering; which relates to my misgivings about the approach in the OP.

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Well I think this relates to discrete separation between note knowledge and fingering; which relates to my misgivings about the approach in the OP.
    I confess that I still don't understand the OP.

    If you already know where all the notes on the fretboard are, instantaneously, would you still need to think about any of these fingering patterns?

    And, if you don't know the notes, wouldn't it be easier to spend the time to learn them and thereby reduce the pressure to learn multiple patterns of dots on grids?

    Or, if the issue is having stuff under your fingers for high tempos, why not go right to vocabulary by lifting licks?