The Pros and Cons of the CAGED System

[Reg]

So in a perfect world... or the worst world, I guess it's very subjective, but what would be the best fingering system to learn the fretboard. Granted... we all know what the goal is, at least with respect to where we're at... A JAZZ GUITAR FORUM.

Let's skip the 1st few years... they're pretty much useless.

Personally I'm in the school and have been posting and backing up what I say with my system, basically Bills from berklee, I just happen to have worked out a similar system without Berklee.

The interesting part is I do use most of the established fingerings and quite often make them up as I perform, out of necessity...I get out of position or whatever.... but the point as I always say is It doesn't matter where or what I'm playing, I always know where I'm at on the fretboard, because of a fretboard grid reference. I made a choice, just as Henry made a choice... as to what that fretboard reference is.

So if I pretend I'm fumblefingers and perform two octaves of Gmaj scale from the Mediant to Mediant or Subtonic to Subtonic, I always have a starting fretboard reference. Different fingering can help with articulations, embellishments, ornamentation and just basic jazz phrasing... but I have the choice.

Pentatonics have great shapes on Guitar, not that great with three notes per string, but work, especially on simi or solid bodies etc... hard to articulate different than than the somewhat natural pattern phrasing.
Caged is cool, I have a Elvis tribute gig tomorrow night... I bet I'll be in caged mode all night. Dam another different use of term Mode, I guess there are melodic considerations... Caged Elvis Mode.

In the end your going to use all fingerings...

The sight reading reference, Groyniad... Being able to sight read, doesn't get int the way, really. It actually helps. Once your comfortable sight reading all the skills you mentioned are the same, I just don't have to memorize all parkers heads... seriously part of the sight reading skill set is to be able to phrase the same using different fingering. One of my faults is always being a groove... I can't help myself.

Like I said earlier some ornamentations are easier with specific fingerings, but generally if you sight read well your always ahead, For turns or trills, whatever, you simply change position... or even jump. Sight reading dots on the page is just like reading changes, hearing what you play or playing what your hear, well actually your hearing what's on the page then realizing ... you have choices. I can't speak for all... but your view of all possible fingering as academic
might be just the opposite... being musical is... and not just my view of what is musical... is my reason for being aware and able to play with different fingerings.

[fumblefingers]

makes perfect sense to me. i can't speak for anyone else, but my main point (opinion only) is overuse injury avoidance. or put another way:

"don't practice stretch fingering scale or arpeggio marathons in the lower positions of your guitar" (unless you have a Byrdland).

[Groyniad]

i think henryrobinet is dead right about modes

[Reg]

Moving away from fingering systems to use of term modes.

So we all know that the use of the word mode for playing any scale from one of it's scale degrees... is slang, it's just a cheap BS way to say... Hey play E prygian mode over that E7susb9 chord or play G lydian Dominant or Lydian b7 over that G7... so yea... calling fingerings a mode is incorrect.

Just for reference, when we as jazz players get into Modes or modal, we're generally changing which note(s) in a scale create the relationships which create movement... function. How you think of a Dominant chord resolving to a tonic chord, a dominant cadence. Different modes can have different cadence functions.

So if I said play Dorian Mode... there can be different harmonic organization.

But generally when I say Dorian... we jump to a fingering. Which is suppose to just be a learning tool to help you become aware of where your at in reference to a tonal center. Not a method of playing notes over a chord.

The use of the term Dorian is to help you become aware of the possible relationships, which may develop from the same chord or chord pattern... The relationships can and usually do CHANGE, the analysis changes, which is reflected in where the improv may go...

But I'm OK with beginning guitar students using the modal terms to help learn the fretboard, even if they never get past fingerings. But there are also seven fingerings of Dorian etc...

[henryrobinett]

But I'm OK with beginning guitar students using the modal terms to help learn the fretboard, even if they never get past fingerings. But there are also seven fingerings of Dorian etc...

I'm complete not OK with referencing beginning students on the fretboard by modal terms. Can you tell? LOL. It totally sets them up to be confused down the line, then they have to undo all of that. What I see happening is -- I'll say to an otherwise well heeled student, "Play Eb Dorian here." And invariable goes to the 2nd scale pattern. That's just his reference point -- WHICH IS WRONG. Then he's jumping all over the neck when playing modes, rather than keeping his hand in one place playing through various modes. All of the modes are in each scale pattern, and I think he needs to recognize this. Scale Patterns and MODES are not the same thing.

He's INCORRECTLY associated the scale patterns as modes, so Lydian will always be the scale pattern that starts on the 4th degree.

I think with beginning students it's especially important to get them to do it right so they won't have to undo later.

[Patrick2]

I gotta tell ya guys . . especially Reg and Henry . . I'm just totally pleased with what this thread has morphed into. Most especially the oblique turn it took into a discussion on modes. The prior two posts from Reg and Henry are an example of what I'm talking about. I was taught modes very early on . . and I fell right into the trap that Henry defined. Yet, I was also taught (by a different instructor) to look at modes . . and use them, exactly as Reg referenced. Yet, there was a remaining element of conflict/confusion. These posts have really helped to clear much of that up. Thanx!!

[targuit]

I find much of this discussion to be irrelevant to a certain degree. What I mean is that there are multiple ways to voice chords on the finger board and to play the identical melody or sequence of notes in various positions. Which position you choose to play in and how you segue from one note or chordal voicing to another is a matter of style, comfort, and other factors. And the discussion of modes in this context is hard to understand. Modes exist in any key. They are simply a note pool. I find it annoying when someone says "play Dorian or Aeolian over these two measures". Why? If it is a standards' melody, it is what it is. Read or hear the notes, the phrases and play it. Or improvise in the modal scale if that is what is required, but to require yourself to think in different modal patterns over different measures and chords seems a waste of focus to me and a distraction from either using your ears to play or simply reading the notation.

Who really gives a crap what mode it is? Not Joe Pass, Herb Ellis, Jim Raney, Al Viola, Jimmy Smith.......

And as long as I'm opining in a way that will surely be open to criticism, I have never found the slightest use for those types of multiple grid patterns of scales beyond inducing a migraine headache. Simply my personal opinion, and Henry and I differ on learning scales and fingerings. In my view learn the Segovia diatonic scale patterns and then learn to play the guitar. Basta.

Jay

[Patrick2]

I find much of this discussion to be irrelevant to a certain degree. What I mean is that there are multiple ways to voice chords on the finger board and to play the identical melody or sequence of notes in various positions. Which position you choose to play in and how you segue from one note or chordal voicing to another is a matter of style, comfort, and other factors. And the discussion of modes in this context is hard to understand. Modes exist in any key. They are simply a note pool. I find it annoying when someone says "play Dorian or Aeolian over these two measures". Why? If it is a standards' melody, it is what it is. Read or hear the notes, the phrases and play it. Or improvise in the modal scale if that is what is required, but to require yourself to think in different modal patterns over different measures and chords seems a waste of focus to me and a distraction from either using your ears to play or simply reading the notation.

Who really gives a crap what mode it is? Not Joe Pass, Herb Ellis, Jim Raney, Al Viola, Jimmy Smith.......

And as long as I'm opining in a way that will surely be open to criticism, I have never found the slightest use for those types of multiple grid patterns of scales beyond inducing a migraine headache. Simply my personal opinion, and Henry and I differ on learning scales and fingerings. In my view learn the Segovia diatonic scale patterns and then learn to play the guitar. Basta.

Jay

Jay; your post indicates exactly why I and others of my level do find this discussion relavent. Many here are not at your's, Henry's, Reg's, bako's JonR's . . etc., level of knowledge or playing. So, the examples of all of the different ways to think and practice these things through give us options . . and help us to realize and understand that there are no real absolutes, as it relates to fingerings and how we practice or apply them. Segovia scales worked for you. I and other find them to be less useful. Some here endorse a FS1 . . over an FS4. Others, the opposite. It's all useful.

For me, I've decided to hit every damned note I possibly can . . then make a facial expression indicating that's exactly what I was going for. No one will ever know the difference.

But, in all seriousness . . I do find the discussion to be very helpful.

[henryrobinett]

I've said it before Jay, the Segovia scales are close to worthless for jazz. But since you're not really a bonafide jazz player you might not realize this.

And those guys certainly did use a form of modes, you also might not be aware of. They might not have called them by those ancient Greek names, but they most assuredly did think of a row of notes that corresponded to the sound of the chord. That's how many teachers get students to grok the use of modes over diatonic harmony.

[Jehu]

FWIW, when I posted that chart of the fingerings, I wasn't referring to the modal labels; I was just showing Henry the CAGED fingerings for the major scale up the fretboard and that they indeed gaplessly overlap with one another.

[targuit]

Listen - if pondering pages of chord diagrams of scales helps you learn the fret board, then fine. Enjoy. The Segovia scales are fundamental to the teaching of classical guitar, and somehow according some educators, lose all relevance to the fret board and playing the notes on the fret board, which amazingly have not varied for centuries!

I am not saying that modes do not exist or are not ways of conceptualizing note pools. But I do feel (my opinion) that interpreting chord voicings and melodies through a modal analytical lens creates very little of value to the improvising guitarist.

Here is a little news flash - the notes on the fret board are what they are and do not vary according to modes, voicings, or the time of day. In music there are imperatives and questions. Can you read the notes on the staff - yes or no? Can you play the melody as written or as you hear it in your head - yes or no? Is it in the myxolydian mode what you just played -yes or no? Who gives a crap?
JAY

[henryrobinett]

It's important when trying conceptualize how to improvise, especially over complex chord changes. And I agree, the Segovia scales are very important for classical guitar. Not jazz though.

[Jehu]

Ah, alright so by gaps, you mean that they don't have a two-note overlap. Gotcha.

By the way, I dig your "three times done" rule.

[Vladan]

I gotta tell ya guys . . especially Reg and Henry . . I'm just totally pleased with what this thread has morphed into. Most especially the oblique turn it took into a discussion on modes. The prior two posts from Reg and Henry are an example of what I'm talking about. I was taught modes very early on . . and I fell right into the trap that Henry defined. Yet, I was also taught (by a different instructor) to look at modes . . and use them, exactly as Reg referenced. Yet, there was a remaining element of conflict/confusion. These posts have really helped to clear much of that up. Thanx!!

I remember someone tried to show me scale patterns by the name of modes. I could not understand, asking my self "why the f+++ would this be any particular mode when I have al the notes of all modes in it?". Pretty lousy choice for a label, IMO.

For what Reg says, if someone would tell me "play Dorian", I'd have to ask which one, or would guess by the overall tonality/ chord of the moment ... and would look for that 6th degree of parallel major (Yes, that's the way I see it. I do not see it as raised 6th of naturaal minor), regardless of fingering.

For what Henry says, I could never do 3 notes per string thing. Guess the main reason is one need to stretch the index finger, which is hard and unnatural to me. Stretching pinkie I find more than easy. Anywaay, think I'll work on it all a bit, 3 notes per string and streching index that is.

Re 3 notes per string for shredding: Once uppon a time I played rhythm guitar in a sort of HM band, where the lead guy (and author) did a bastardized way of 3 notes per string in position, where one note repeaats on the g and b strings, all without stretching index, but pinkie instead. I even tried to practice that, but (un)fortunatelly the band split up (It was not bad at all, with mentioned shreder on lead, funky fusion slapper on bass, popster on drums and someone like me on rhythm), so I completely forgot about the technique, for some 23 yeaars, untill reading previous couple of posts.

[henryrobinett]

The stretch between the 3rd and 4th finger seems natural to all of my students at first until I get them to get used to the stretch between the 1st and 2nd. The stretch between the 3-4 puts a lot more stress on the hand. They share a tendon. There's a contraction of the hand. If you get used to index finger stretch your hand opens naturally. But you have to give it a shot. It works. Opening the hand vs contracting it. No brainer for me.

[Moonray]

For a start I don't like this sense of an adherence to this or that system of fingerings.

I have been watching this discussion develop and have been wondering what on earth
a jazz neophyte might get from it.

OK the original post was by one of our senior and knowledgeable members and looked to me
to be sort of canvassing the membership to check out who uses what approach.

I'm surprised at how some of our most learned colleagues have been going down the "my way
or the highway" route.

Why not see each system as such to have its advantages and disadvantages ?
....Some posts have taken this more open minded approach.

I personally have a solid grounding in the 5 position, 3NPS, along single string fgs, did the Segovia
fg's for years back in a previous life....Bill Leavitt's fg's also have much merit....but only if as someone
else mentioned upstream.....only if you have a well developed LH.....[one of the side benefits of playing
classical guitar which is well nigh impossible with a shitty LH technique.
...And then there's the Pat Martino approach, which I see as 5 positions with his signature skating chromatically
[usually descending and usually with his first finger]

Re the Segovia adherent[s]......his fingerings are simply based on the 5 fg/CAGED but linking them together
so as the student gets used to making shifts between shapes when playing longer scales...especially the
3 octave ones and that there are innumerable others he could have come up with....he probably did but
didn't get them published.
Remember also that Segovia was pretty much an auto-didact....and yes he was just as human as all of us
and came up with these fg's for his own purposes.
Today, he might be scratching his head if he were to read through this thread.
....Of course he was so strongly self confident [he had to be] that he would proclaim that his was the best
...or only... way.

If anyone is still reading......[I am long winded and seem to end threads....heh heh] .....I personally
use different fg's for different purposes....probably even the Elvis fg's ....love that...good one Reg! ha ha..
.....Quick, whip out an instructional manual on that one.....could be a $ or two in it.

Kidding aside....each player will come up with their own bag of approaches.
For the jazz player who is searching....I suggest you take a long hard look at the Barry Galbraith books on
Logical Fingerings, one on major and dominant the other on melodic and harmonic minor....then see his use
of these in his single line solo book....the solos are based on standard tunes.

And for the people who are playing other than mainstream and bop...get ready to make up your own fingerings
to suit what you're hearing.
Go on, try it, it's supposed to be creative this playing music thing isn't it?

OK .....apologies about the long rave....I've been holding back....but today I just couldn't help my bad self.

[Jehu]

Regarding "three times done":
There was a famous classical guitarist (Emilio Pujol maybe?) who would prep for concerts by going over tricky passages using a "50 times done" rule! He had 50 small stones, and each time he played it right he would put a stone in a satchet, not moving on until the satchet was full. When he made a mistake he would empty it out and start again.

[henryrobinett]

50 times done is great. Is that 50 times IN A ROW without making a mistake. My method definitely gets you in to that number and beyond. But you practice as you need. But the three times done is for repeated daily practice.

[henryrobinett]

For moonray -- please realize I never said my way or the highway. I distinctly said "to each his own" and each method will work. You just need to apply yourself to the one. But clearly I have my biases. AND I'd warn against getting bogged down in too many methods. One will do.

[Moonray]

Congrats on reading my post Henry....I hope I didn't cause offense.
Not intended.

I agree with you on not having too many systems.

Hey, for anyone really wanting to go nuts with this scale system thing....Check out the inimitable
Pebber Brown's YouTube videos on the topic.

He does: CAGED, 7 position, 12 position [Ross Tuttle's], Pebber's own 14 pos,Holdsworth's approach,
Pat Martino's and so on.
Talk about thorough....

I like Pebber and enjoy his gruff but friendly delivery.
He does make some interesting points on technique etc.....sometimes thought provoking.

Some US members may know him.

[bako]

I learned my first fingerings from teachers using the William Leavitt books and also Sal Salvador Single String book. Ted Dunbar introduced the idea of all keys in 5 frets and multiple scale paths connecting octaves or any starting and ending point along a scale. I learned the idea of string groups from a lesson with Pat Martino and an idea of grafting different tetra chord fingerings together from Dr. William Fowler in a Downbeat magazine column. Mick Goodrick's Advancing Guitarist lent support and additional insight to a path I had already traveled for years.
CAGED fingerings never came up. I never heard of them until the internet.

Scale fingerings are logical and organized. Music is messy.
I like how Reg describes having a base fingering and the ability and intelligence to adjust as needed.

Perhaps because Ravi Shankar and Indian music was prominent when I was younger, I practiced scales
with drones of each degree as if each mode was a raga. This made it very apparent that the unique sound of each mode derived from the context and the notes emphasized. Modes are not fingerings.


A Simple Story

whole step on one string

------1---3-----------------------

half step on one string

------1---2-----------------------

whole step on adjacent string pairs tuned in 4ths (E-A, A-D, D-G,B-E)

---------2----------------------------
-----5--------------------------------

whole step on adjacent string pair tuned in a major 3rd (G-B)

---------3-------------------------------
-----5-----------------------------------

half step on adjacent string pairs tuned in 4ths (E-A, A-D, D-G,B-E)

--------1----------------------------------
----5--------------------------------------

half step on adjacent string pair tuned in a major 3rd (G-B)

--------2--------------------------------------
----5------------------------------------------

Enough info to construct every possible fingering for major, melodic minor,
diminished, whole tone and chromatic scales. Add augmented 2nds for harmonic minor,
harmonic major, and augmented scales.

[Flyin' Brian]

Your diagram is confusing me. (not hard to do).

It looks like the numbers are referring to fingers? Frets? 5?

[Patrick2]

Your diagram is confusing me. (not hard to do).

It looks like the numbers are referring to fingers? Frets? 5?

I'm glad it's not just me. The first two examples are obvious. The next three still have me wondering.

[bako]

Your diagram is confusing me. (not hard to do).
It looks like the numbers are referring to fingers? Frets? 5?

Major and minor 2nds are the building blocks of basic ascending/descending scale play.
The single string tab can represent any string.
The string pair tab indicates which strings are represented.
The numbers indicate frets.
The fret number was random lower neck, but the intervallic distance is not.
There are several fingering possibilities for most of the intervals presented.
Hope that's clearer.

Interval awareness increases understanding and adds flexibility to craft alternative fingerings to suit the moment.

[Moonray]

Bako, I think Brian could be referring to the last grid where you marked it as a whole step
between the 3rd and 2nd string, but would be a half step.

I'd like to express my thanks to Bako for being a clear thinker and writer.
Skills I lack somewhat alas.

Really enjoyed being reminded of the Wm Fowler articles which appeared in Downbeat for
years and subsequently in Keyboard magazine.
I collected all of those as clippings and have them in a compendium of 4 scrapbooks.
What an educator he was!

I learned what's now known as the drop tone chord system from a 1 or 2 page article.
He didn't get into deep theory space....just here are 3 string sets....here are the inversions
now go and have fun figuring all the rest out.....brilliant stuff.
I see books galore written on this topic alone.

The tetrachord system of scale construction I remember him discussing in his brief, clear way
but it failed to "stick" for me.

You were fortunate to have access to teachers who knew about the Berklee books etc etc.
In the Antipodes it was necessary to keep your eyes and ears open for any such materials.
In the end it's all the same process, just that it can take longer.

Re your great line "scale fingerings are logical and organized...music is messy"
I laughed out loud, and when my wife asked what was so funny I told her and she added
a similar observation in her job as a technical editor/writer which goes:

"In theory there's theory and practice....but in practice there is only practice"

Thanks for your contributions, I always know I'm gonna learn something when I see a post headed "Bako"