-
I've read and heard quite a few opinions in both camps on this approach. The camp of . . "it's the way to go" . . and the camp of . . "it's more of a detriment and an impediment than anything else". From the little bit of exploration I've done with it, I'm not a very big believer, at this point. I'd be very interested in hearing a debate and opinions on it.
Any opinions??
-
12-23-2014 11:08 PM
-
Hi
I dont have you experience on guitar but what I understand is that in phase 1: caged (which I use) is a simple way to group scale/arpeggios/chord into simple "brain boxes". in phase 2 you start moving around from shapes to shapes on the fretboard changing shape to accommodate the same chord symbol (they interlock). In phase 3 the fretboard is one big shape which is probably where any system gets you.
Maybe (just maybe) it has a + of simplicity and less fingerstetch when playing in position but that is not the goal (for me) anyway
Maybe (just maybe) it has a - of being harder to sight read since you have to take a decision for altered notes that you dont have to do on a 6 fret system
just my personal view.
-
I dunno...it's a navigation system.
Some people treat it like it's a "method," which is ridiculous. You either know the notes on the neck or not. It's all about reference. If you look at it that way, CAGED is a pretty good reference...but I think for jazz, if you want to map the fretboard, four note chords are the way to go.
-
They are just different ways looking at the same thing. Guess I was lucky when I started I was taught finger patterns without some label on them. I got to GIT we learned HR's patterns that were pretty much the same as I already knew. Then I got into the Berklee fingering and like them what the stretches offered. After that I learned other fingering from playing bass and that taught a lot that transfer to guitar. Then studying bass you need to learn a lot of styles and approaches to doing things and the attitude is learn them all over time and when playing don't think about it let your hands decide what to use.
So pick one learned, but know at some point in the future you will probably learn another way and increase your toolbox.
-
I found the CAGED system particularly useful when first learning the ordering of horizontal scale patterns in two string groups. However, it is too easy to get caught up in patterns and not pay proper attention to intervals when first learning scales.
-
Is it even a "system"? I never had the understanding that it was codified or anything. Leavitt is organized around one person's fingering protocol. I thought CAGED was more of just a reference for the layout of chords/scales on the fretboard.
There's not even a consensus on fingering is there? Seems like different people finger things differently calling it CAGED?
-
CAGED vs Bruno fingerings...
I have studied with JB for several years and am comfortable with his fingerings. I've just ordered Bill Leavitt's Vol. 1, mainly to work on sight reading, but I've read tonight that BL used a CAGED fingering system. I'm not really interested right now in getting my fingers mixed up by taking on another fingering system. Will the Leavitt book mess me up or can I work through it and just use my JB fingerings?
-
Actually, I think Bruno is more like similar to CAGED than out is to Leavitt. I suppose you could just focus in the music and ignore the fingering...
Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 12-24-2014 at 01:27 AM.
-
If you use chromatics (and you should if you're playing Jazz!), then the standard CAGED fingerings quickly get superceded by one's own preferred way of handling the chromatic extensions outside the "boxes". Same goes for arps and chromatically enclosed arps, they creep so far out of each box at times they become hybrid patterns of adjacent boxes, whatever it takes to get to the notes you want, right?
But as a starting reference I found it compulsory for the way I learned things, ie, every new scale, mode, arp, device lick etc, I would work them out in all 5 positions, and all in the same key! (Cmajor). Each of the 5 CAGED positions contained the central root note which was my anchor. From there I could play all my material, including chord inversions, with my eyes closed. Doing this in all 5 positions very thoroughly for as long as it takes (ie, years) makes it easy to transpose all material to different keys. Hence you have the ability to play all your material in all keys in all positions without too much thinking. With your eyes closed and singing as you play can help even more.
One bump in the road for me was that there are 4 chord inversions for every 4 note chord, but 5 positions.... I contemplated dropping one of the CAGED positions so that my chords would align with everything else with no left overs, or confusion. That didn't work out too well as there was no one position that could be sacrificed for all situations, you need them all! What I did instead was to play an extra chord for the 5 position that was maybe either a closed position or a different drop (say drop 3 instead of drop 2). This filled in all the holes and works well for my overall conception.
One criticism of CAGED I come across is that it limits you to a boxed in position. While it's true to an extent, I always argue that most lines I articulate require no more than the 2 and a bit octaves available to my fingers in any one position. When I "hear" something that goes beyond, I use a guide finger to move into a different position. I have routines I practice that make me comfortable to do this on each string in each position.Anyway, less movement means more economy and technical confidence, to me at least.
Another criticism is that there is no point learning devices or vocab in all positions that some ideas work better in their "best" positions. I always disagree here as well, every position lays and plays differently if you play the exact same notes, but you don't just play the notes the same way, they always get approached or resolved differently given the range of notes available at either extremity of the position. That way a single idea turns into 5 variations of the idea, 10 if it's small enough to be played an 8ve up or down in each position.
So yeah, CAGED is cool, and it's always "there", even if you're flying around or in between positions, they are your 5 invisible guide posts yo rely on for orientation at all times. Well, for me anyway!
-
I think CAGED is a good way to map out your fretboard - especially when you are new to guitar - I'm teaching guitar and that's the way I show students how to understand the layout of chords and their related scales for lead playing: I am totally self taught and over the years I noticed that the lines I'm playing follow the shape of a chord fingering plus additional notes (of the chord related shape).
This all works well for Blues and Rock and you can go further by realising that the chord shapes (and their related scale shapes) interlock and form new chord and scale shapes that are part this and part that CAGED pattern.
This is all the mechanical side of things, though and I'd strongly advise any student to know what they are doing there in terms of the musical side of things which would necessitate a basic understanding of music theory.
The CAGED patterns are there - no matter if you look at your fretboard that way or another....
-
For me the biggest advantage of CAGED is the close relationship with the pentatonic boxes. In fact I actually see the various scales/mode fingerings as "customizations" to the pentatonic shapes since that's how my ears categorize them as well.
I guess the disadvantage would be that is hard to shred with but even 3-note/string fingerings are hard for me, so instead I use small 2 string patterns that can be repeated down and across the neck without change in fingering. Then once I land somewhere I like I go back to thinking in terms of boxes or arpeggios.
-
Here's a link to Fred Sokolow's "Fretboard Roadmaps" at Amazon. You can use the "Look Inside" feature to see a few pages of the book.
Fretboard Roadmaps: The Essential Guitar Patterns That All the Pros Know and Use (Guitar Techniques): Fred Sokolow: 0073999069822: Amazon.com: Books
This isn't a system so much as a habit developed by many folk, country, blues, rock, and jazz players from Way Back When. It's wholly practical. It's pretty much what Herb Ellis teaches in his books, which is what Charlie Christian used.
It's especially useful for those coming to jazz from a blues and / or rock (or country) background.
For Herb Ellis, the shapes are a visual reference; he didn't use these as comping voicings. I work in one of his three books (-Swing Blues, Rhythm Shapes, and All the Shapes You Are) every day. They're my bread and butter. Highly recommended.
-
It's just a method to learn the fingerboard, the intervals of chords and scales and arpeggios. And as Mr. B said it provides reference or landmarks for learning/navigating the fretboard. It is not fingerings, it is not about position playing or staying in one position.
Anyone who has received a high level of fretboard knowledge has the same knowledge whether they got there using CAGED or some other method. Someone at this level has no need to conciously think of CAGED anymore, rather the whole fretboard has just become your playground.
-
I started with CAGED-like thinking (all the MI books seem to use it, it though they call them positions 1-5). Nowadays, I've boiled it down to sets of octaves, usually orienting myself in any area of the fretboard by the two or three locations for the root of the chord I'm playing. (Or the root of the scale, if I'm thinking in scales.)
This still amounts to five positions, though I'm pretty comfortable moving among them. Perhaps one day, even this will drop away, and I'll see the whole fretboard at once. That would be nice.
-
CAGED seems like a good first step in unlocking the fretboard, to me. And, hey, Joe Pass used it.
Leavitt was helpful for me, too, in kind of extending my ideas of what is possible.
3-note-per-string was nice, as well.
Now I'm trying to figure out how to distill it down into my own system, which is what I think everyone eventually has to do. Learn it all, then adapt.
-
CAGED is really about shifts versus the stretches of a Leavitt type system. Players with smaller hands, like myself, sometimes prefer caged fingerings because they're easier on hands. Some things just lay out better with one little shift.
On the other hand, once you get away from diatonic and start getting more chromatic, there are just some things that require a stretch. Once you admit that, you kind of open a Pandora's box.
If you're going to use SOME stretches anyway, why not just use a system which utilizes them exclusively and remains in one position?
Mentally, there are a lot of things that are just going to feel contrived with CAGED fingerings, but kinesthetically, or in terms of how your hand feels, the same is true with Leavitt fingerings at times. Honestly it's probably good to know both long term. Most really good players are down with stretch thing, and pull from certain blues fingerings etc. as well.
Stretch fingerings which stay in position are always going to win on paper, but your hands aren't made of paper either. While I feel like you have to know how the stretch thing works and be able to do some of both , I don't see myself using that stuff into my 70s and 80s. I'd like to think that I'm still playing then....
-
Well sir . . I'm not sure what you're not sure about.?.? But I'm sure that my post was clear, unless the surity of the post is something that I for sure have taken as a given? But, surely, you still seem to be unsure. For sure!
Originally Posted by fumblefingers
Focus, if you will . . on these few words . . caged, pluses - minuses, opinions. Surely, you can be sure of what the question was. But . . I'm not so sure of that either. WHAT???
-
[QUOTE=matt.guitarteacher;487339]Actually, I think Bruno is more like similar to CAGED than out is to Leavitt.
How the heck could you do that? That's like driving to Grandma house and not focusing on driving "over the river and through the woods" . . without "the horse knowing the way to carry the sleigh" In order to navigat the fret board, one needs a road map.I suppose you could just focus in the music and ignore the fingering...
I suppose you could do that by just understanding the intervals and knowing which intervalic note you're looking for, then using what ever fingering, positioning, stretching or shifting you wanted to. But, wouldn't that be very inefficient?
-
:-) Dang, you're full of eggnog and holiday merriment.... Originally Posted by Patrick2
actually my comment was in reference to this post:
I've long heard other members advocate using Leavitt's modern method, but sticking with CAGED fingerings... Originally Posted by jasaco
Myself, I used Leavitt fingering with the Leavitt books, but I knew the CAGED fingerings from back in the day. Some people really don't like stretch fingerings...
-
I'm having fun reading all these different names for dots on a grid.
Pick one learn it, move on its training wheels not a marriage.
[Update]
Thinking about this at this point my system is the position markers. That from studying and practicing especially sightreading that its just about learning the fretboard and knowing where you are. It takes awhile to get there, but isn't that the goal?Last edited by docbop; 12-24-2014 at 04:19 PM.
-
This CAGED thing is new to me. I assume C, A, G, E, D refer to the open chord shapes, so is the idea to build in-position diatonic scale patterns around these shapes? Only five in-position scale patterns to cover you up and down the fretboard. Then at the other extreme you have Leavitt's twelve in-position patterns, some of which always seemed awkward to me. Interesting that you mentioned three-note-per-string patterns; I've always liked these. There are seven, depending on which degree of the scale you start on the sixth string; they all move up one or two positions as you ascend from the sixth to first string. And each pattern has a natural in-position variation you get by playing only two notes on one string, either the third or second string depending on which is easier. This gives you seven in-position patterns that feel pretty comfortable (I'm guessing these are the CAGED patterns plus two others). When I practice scale patterns I like to mix these together, say starting on the lowest possible note, ascend with three note patterns, descend in position and go all the way up the fret board. Then go back down by descending in three notes and ascending in position. Anyone else a fan of the three-note-per-string approach? Originally Posted by ecj
-
Once you know your basic root position chords, arps and major scale across the neck, you can pretty much intuit CAGED if you pay attention to how they correlate with each other. Once you know these things, CAGED is almost redundant. If you don't know them, CAGED is meaningless.
CAGED is like growing up in in New York, knowing the city like the back of your hand and then someone tells you the system for how the streets are organized. It was already organized informally in your mind, someone just came along after the fact and gave it a name and a formal structure for describing what you've learned.
-Last edited by teok; 12-24-2014 at 04:09 PM.
-
The nice thing about Leavitt is that you'll eventually run into all the CAGED and 3NPS fingerings once you start playing with position shifts. That's how I like to think of it, at least.
-
I wonder about that. I know Joe talked about it in seminars and it's in at least one of his books that I have, but he never says that is how he learned, or even goes into much detail about what one might do with the CAGED system. (I'm not against it, by any means. Whatever keeps you playing...) Originally Posted by ecj
For me, CAGED wasn't much help in unlocking the fretboard. (Others use it and like it. Again, I'm not knocking it.) Perhaps I gave up on it too soon. It wouldn't be the first time....
I found the Ellis 'shape system' more useful because I knew what to do with it. It was all about knowing where you are on the neck Right Now and how to get anywhere else you want to go from there.
-
Originally Posted by Patrick2
Well sir . . I'm not sure what you're not sure about.?.? But I'm sure that my post was clear, unless the surity of the post is something that I for sure have taken as a given? But, surely, you still seem to be unsure. For sure!
Focus, if you will . . on these few words . . caged, pluses - minuses, opinions. Surely, you can be sure of what the question was. But . . I'm not so sure of that either. WHAT???
OK.
Disclaimers.
1. I admit to not looking at CAGED fingerings as being a “chord helper” or vice versa. I look at them as scale fingerings.
2. It might have been more constructive to list the advantages and disadvantages of CAGED relative to another approach, or two.
Advantages:
1. A simple way to learn and play major scale fingerings across all six strings, covering the fret board with only five fingering patterns. Two octave runs can be played in a single fingering or via two adjacent fingerings (ala Segovia’s C Major scale approach)
2. A framework that can be applied to other diatonic scales (Mel. Minor, Harm. Minor, Harm. Major). And for that matter, pentatonic and blues.
3. A framework for arpeggio fingerings
4. Does not involve stretches of the 1rst or 4th fingers, unless one is in the upper positions of the fret board, where stretches may be advantageous. (see Shearer, Leavitt fingerings)
- Stretching is hard on the finger joints, especially when one practices scales and arpeggios for extended periods of time, as jazz guitarists are wont to do
- Stretching can lead to one playing with the side of one’s finger, which can sacrifice both strength and tone.
- Most jazz greats don’t use these stretchy fingerings as their primary approach (just watch their hands)
5. Forces the guitarist to become a competent “shifter”, which is something that virtually every great jazz guitarist is.
- Watch Wes – heck he barely uses his 4th finger, much less stretch with it
- Watch Jimmy Raney in “that” video, shifting constantly
Disadvantages:
1. A couple of the fingerings have awkward shifts, one fingering in particular. However, this is mitigated by the fact that when one plays real music, one doesn’t need to play across all 6 strings very frequently, at least not in a single “run”.
2. Some of the minor scale fingerings aren’t so great – meaning, not all five of them are so great. (But this applies to other fingering “systems” as well)
3. Stretch fingerings can help with sight-reading unfamiliar music.
4. Not as friendly for super-fast, broad range lines, as opposed to say 3NPS.Last edited by fumblefingers; 12-24-2014 at 11:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
TOOB/Metro business looking for successor/partner
Today, 08:15 AM in For Sale