-
I dunno. When I listen to 'Resolution' it's like he's become the entire human race. I think Trane is something else.... I don't think it's any coincidence that he is the saint...
Originally Posted by princeplanet
Depends what blows yer hair back I guess. For mine, I'll take mid 60's Shorter over mid 60's Trane any day of the week. I mean I get Trane, I even feel Trane, absolutely. Just think that he's been a little over celebrated. People say it's because he was a pioneer in a style that persists to this day. So what about Ornette or Dolphy? I don't see no church raised in their memory.
Wayne Shorter was no slouch in the "Revolutionary" stakes either....
-
07-04-2016 01:55 PM
-
Well yes, that as well as a few other Trane moments is nothing short of pure transcendence (Tranescendent?) in a way that no other music I've ever heard is. When he connects with you, it's an outer body experience like no other, no question, pure emotion. Originally Posted by christianm77
I guess I'm talking more about lines when I say I prefer other players. The "sheets" thing doesn't always connect...
-
True - I would say I'm not much influenced by Trane as a player, and I would almost say his craft is a little bit haphazard in an odd sort of way. Originally Posted by princeplanet
But I hugely admire his art.
-
If I had to choose, I probably like Shorter the best, mostly because I just really like his tunes. That said, you can have my copy of "A Love Supreme" when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
-
I do it every time (don't think about them). Only when reading do I think about positions. Learning a tune, or making an arrangement I sort of dope out a plan, then memorize what I did.
Otherwise, I've been playing for so long (50 plus years) I figure I'd better know where to put my hands by now. I mostly let my ear lead me, it's rarely let me down.
But if pressed, say, giving a lesson, I could probably break the neck stuff down. Guess I'd have to...
-
Moreno seems to view the neck as one big diagonal position. He doesn't care for the sound or intonation of the lower strings in the higher positions.
Come to think of it Wes seems to do the same type of thing a lot of the time.
-
I'm digging the heavier strings in higher positions more since I altered the gauges. I find I like thick plain strings but thinner than usual (for those kinda gauge sets) round wound strings. Not as woolly... Choice of guitar, pup settings as well as amp settings can all help put some life into the wound strings... Originally Posted by christianm77
-
If I know the tune well enough, I don't need to think at all.
Most people, apparently, use the CAGED system to learn the fretboard.
I'd never heard of it when I started out. I did learn major scales starting on any note. Not quite the same thing, but some overlap.
I also learned to read, all over the neck.
But, at some point, I discovered that I could play better in C major than, say, in F#. I realized it was because I knew where all the notes are in C major and I knew the chord tones for the usual chords.
So, then, I decided to learn all 12 keys as well as I knew C major. That requires a lot of drill and I still work on it.
The way it relates to the issue of patterns is this. If you know the notes in the arp or scale you want, by name, and you know where all those notes are on the fretboard without having to think about it, you can find the notes you need, independent of any pattern.
Where this approach breaks down is when you want to play really fast. Playing really fast seems to require practicing the licks and lines in specific ways -- and that leads to a pattern based approach.
BTW. guys who learned CAGED eventually are able to connect all the patterns and stop thinking about them.
-
That's not necessarily 100% true, although a lot of it rings true for me. I can play pretty fast, but I've never learned the lines as patterns I practiced in order to play fast.
I'm not a fan of CADGE, so I don't have a lot to say about that. It's not the be all, end all of all things guitar. I think folks who use it and swear by it are fine, and can play great. It's just not necessarily the only system that works, and for my money, it's not the best.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I like CAGED. If it's good enough for Joe Pass…. I know the fretboard quite well, but there are still some points I lack. Flat and sharp keys aren't ingrained in my brain as well as the rest for example. It might be because I enjoy playing more than doing exercises in all positions and all keys. But then again, I could express myself better if I did.
-
CAGED are only 5 positions. There are actually 7. They correspond to the 7 degrees of the scale. What I do is similar to CAGED, but I think it's even more comprehensive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The thing that's nice about CAGED is its shapes based and based around the chord/arpeggio shapes. I can see why that would be a good shout for old school players who play out of the shapes.
I learned seven positions, but in practice i tend to use caged.
-
Yeah sure, for chords. There are five basic shapes for chords, but there are many more shapes in between that don't seem readily accessed if you're just looking at the five basic chord shapes. Arpeggios are all over the neck and smoothly connect. Seamlessly. The 7 scale patterns and arpeggios fit like a glove together.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Basically we study different organizational and reference systems (chords, arps, scales, intervals - in position, caged whatever)
the task of these systems is only conventional...
At the beginning and at the end we have the same thing: musical sound...
For example we hear a chord - and we say: oh it's A7... naming it is already using a tool... then we hear next chord is D7... it give us possible relations already (like A7 is blues tonic and D7 subdominant for example)... if the next choprd would be G7 that would be different relations... oanother chord helps us to make relations more precise etc.
Then we apply arps or scales or voicings and techically use positions or CAGED whatever (the quantity of tools here can be enormous)... and try to work it out musically...
All these tools is what we practice and what we are thinking about often... but they are from musical point of view just mediums.
And at the end - through this seemingly complex system of referential tools - we actually come to the same point where we were at the beginning: we play a line that according to our hearing fits the harmony we hear in the context...
So my point is that finally what you do through practice with the tools... is making it as natural as moving your hand while walking...
After all we just hear what sounds and play what we hear.
If you want to go home - you just go, you do not think which way you should move you hands while walking. You think only of home.
I know it may take time... and it can be developed to ever growing level... making it never-ending journey...
For example - like walking home from teh office and walking through wild forrest in the night would require different skills...
But I think it's important to understand it from teh very begining...
That it is not only possible to improvize without thinking about positions... but that probably real musical improvization is only possible without thinking of positions)))Last edited by Jonah; 11-21-2016 at 09:56 AM.
-
I think the point of caged is the chord shapes come first and scale steps can be filled in. As I understand it with seven positions the scales come first and the arps are embedded within. Different strokes.
-
I agree. I look at 7 positions as chord scales going up/down the neck, i.e. Gmaj, Ami, Bmi Cmaj…
With the CAGED system I look at each position to all be the same chord - but each a different inversion. Adding the other 2 positions is probably better at connecting the entire fretboard. But it's nice to have that mnemonic pattern (CAGED) when working on position changes.
-
No, that's not quite true. Neither comes first. It's all one system. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
CAGED works pretty well for basic diatonic. There's more to it with jazz I'd think. To be fair, when we say there are five shapes, there aren't really 5, any than there are 3 or 7. We actually mean there are five OPEN major chord shapes. If you're talking inversions of diatonic seventh chords, they're actually four, or three if you're talking about triads. it's all somewhat arbitrary maybe. There are probably more like 12 ways to finger anything. It's all different strokes stuff.
For me lately, it's been more about four inversions and playing out of them, but then, you have to ask what you're basing the FINGERINGS for those inversions on. For me, that's the seven position Reg thing. One thing's for sure, the more positions you are using as a basis, the more uniformity you have across different chord/arpeggio/scale fingerings. Five gives you more options than three. Seven gives you slightly more for the in- between stuff, at least in terms of uniformity.
Of course, none of this is important. We just need to "shut up and play" , or so I've heard for the last 10 years or so here. Not my experience, but whatever.Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 11-22-2016 at 02:32 AM.
-
Ok so how do work on arpeggios then? Seven positions for them? Originally Posted by henryrobinett
-
Yes. Originally Posted by christianm77
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
There are seven notes in the scale, therefore 7 different positions to play them. You have to have the same number of arpeggios and viewpoints of chords, because they all have to fit together as one system, or otherwise it's a little almost pointless. Each arpeggio shapes around the scale it belongs. Each scale forms around the chord/arpeggio. So each fingering makes sense harmonically both for the scale and chord. Nothing out of place.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkLast edited by henryrobinett; 11-22-2016 at 02:41 AM.
-
I don't think it matters so long as you are systematic.
-
Why not?Ok so how do work on arpeggios then? Seven positions for them?
I think it depends on you)I think the point of caged is the chord shapes come first and scale steps can be filled in. As I understand it with seven positions the scales come first and the arps are embedded within. Different strokes.
For example you play G Ionian from 6th string (2nd position), and you play Gmaj7 chord, and you play an arp in teh same position... then you play A Dorian moving up to the 4th position... A-7 chord.. and arps (A-7 and complete A- 9/11/b13) etc.
Or you can do it another way.. you have Gmaj7 shape in 2nd position and you fill-in the notes of the scale staying in the same postion as you suggested for CAGED
In general I believe playing in position is very versatile and quite accomplished approach per se...
To me playing in positions is first of all mixing positions
-
Yep . Seven positions.
Take a note. Let's start with C. Find C on the 6th 5th and 4th string.
Learn to play C scales and arpeggios by starting each with the first second and fourth finger on the C found on the 6th and 5th string, and using the first finger on the C found on the fourth string.
There is your seven distinct positions right there. Stretch The first and-or fourth fingers as necessary to get where you need to go .
It's not complicated at all.Last edited by NSJ; 11-23-2016 at 10:17 AM.
-
One of the things about guitar is that no matter what your persons do's and don'ts are, there's a great player who uses your "don'ts".
I understand the basics of CAGED and scale based approaches, but I'm not clear on how people learn to connect them all over the fingerboard. My impression is that it just sort of happens over time as your fingers start doing your ear's bidding automatically.
Maybe somebody can fill me (us?) in on how that works.
I found it really difficult to learn a scale in multiple positions and, based on knowing how to play the scale from the 6th string up, be able to find the notes in the interior of the scale - when I needed them. I just couldn't memorize the geometry that well. For me, it came easier to learn the note names and the fingerboard.
When I have to think about what to play, I end up with a kind of hodge podge. I know the tones in most of the chords I play (although I can be thrown by an oddball chord symbol or voicing) and I know the underlying scales, mostly, but, on the fly at a high tempo, I may end up thinking about a lick or a chord shape. Kind of a disorganzed mess, really.
Reply With Quote
What's happening at the end of this song?
Today, 07:55 PM in Ear Training, Transcribing & Reading