Do you use arpeggio shapes, major scale shapes, or something else?

[Reg]

Two things:

1) Strong melodies describe chords and chord changes. Arpeggios = chords, and their extensions, played one note at a time. Thus they appear a lot in strong melodies and certainly should be practiced.

2) Chasing down a system for fingering everything up and down the neck is useful but time-consuming. At playing-time, you improvise by ear not, hopefully, by running memorized visual patterns. Thus I recommend spending at least as much time on ear training as on learning visual patterns up and down the neck. You kind of have to forget your patterns at playing time and rely on playing by ear.

R silver... yes I totally agree... melodies and improv imply chords and chord patterns. I'm into harmonic relationships.... and believe a melody or notes don't really work without harmony, chords etc... even if just implied.

But believe that chasing down a system for playing music on the neck makes it easier to have time to work on performance and being able to play what one hears. The running visual patterns is just a personal choice. All though... eventually one gets to the point that they hear phrases rather than single notes.... that being in the moment thing.... which really doesn't mean much if your not in the past and aware of what may be ahead. From both common practice and from what one may be implying.... or what someone else may be implying.

Guitarist tend to get hung up on themselves....

And again being able to hear visual patterns... is really no different than hearing one note at a time. I mean... one can hear changes... right. Everything eventually can be seen as a pattern....

So really.... I believe not having a fingering system... or chasing down how your instrument works etc... is one of the big mistakes most guitarist make.... and usually don't figure it out until.... well they hit a million walls.

[MarkRhodes]

So really.... I believe not having a fingering system... or chasing down how your instrument works etc... is one of the big mistakes most guitarist make.... and usually don't figure it out until.... well they hit a million walls.

Jimmy Bruno's whole deal (-he uses five fingerings but to the same end) is to link the ear and the hand, so that as you hear music in your head, you're able to play it on your instrument. You can't hear a line in your head, THEN figure out how to finger it, AND THEN play it----you'd fall behind the band! It needs to be simultaneous, or very nearly so. No one is born knowing his way around a guitar neck.

[edh]

using these types of fingerings, I believe, helps to learn where on the guitar the notes are as well as how these notes sound in relation to position. After some time I believe the student starts to hear in his head the musical ideas and knows where those sounds are on the guitar.

[Tal_175]

So if I want to play that Bb7 starting on 3rd... I would move up to pattern #7 and play Gmaj scale starting on 3rd, "D" on 6th string, 10th fret with 3rd finger. (Pattern #7 is Locrian). But the pattern is a mechanical technique.... I'm not playing D locrian, I would be playing G mixolydian or G7 starting on 3rd degree.... The Reference is "Bb"

Reg, is there a typo above. Is Gmaj (or G mixo) intended to be a harmonic relationship to Bb7 or did you mean Bb7 all along. If not, what is the harmonic relationship you're implying between Bb7 and Gmaj (or G7 starting from D)?

My second question is, why would you necessarily hit a wall with a system that doesn't employ a separate position for each scale degree on the sixth string?
Someone who uses 5 positions, might see Bb7 as Eb major layout. Not necessarily musically but in terms of fretboard mapping. That is, the key in the moment may not be Eb. It could be C minor or it could be blues in Bb etc.
The point is if they really learned the system, they should be able to find all diatonic arpeggios of Eb major and all their extensions everywhere on the fretboard easily. In this example Bb7 from the third (or Dmin7b5) starting on the 6th string, 5ths string, 4th string etc as well as all inversions. Because they deliberately practiced this stuff over tunes for many many hours, composed licks or germinal melodic ideas based on these extensions and inversions in different string groups.
What is the limitation one would eventually face in this approach?

[christianm77]

Adam Rogers would say you are playing D locrian on Bb7.... if I understood his vid right.

Playing off the third of Bb7.... same thing I guess? I don’t know!

[Tal_175]

Adam Rogers would say you are playing D locrian on Bb7.... if I understood his vid right.

Playing off the third of Bb7.... same thing I guess? I don’t know!

I get the locrian reference but I was confused with G mixolydian starting from D in the context of Bb7 reference. (Edited my post to clarify this).

[joe2758]

G7 and Bb7 are related dominants boi

[MarkRhodes]

My second question is, why would you necessarily hit a wall with a system that doesn't employ a separate position for each scale degree on the sixth string?
Someone who uses 5 positions, might see Bb7 as Eb major layout. Not necessarily musically but in terms of fretboard mapping. That is, the key in the moment may not be Eb. It could be C minor or it could be blues in Bb etc.
The point is if they really learned the system, they should be able to find all diatonic arpeggios of Eb major and all their extensions everywhere on the fretboard easily.

Jimmy Bruno does this. He speaks of "pitch collections" rather than scales, so Bb7 would be from the Eb pitch collection. I don't think he does much thinking about this anymore. It's instinctive for him. But I don't think he hits any "walls" in his playing.

But he would agree with Reg that you have to know where all the notes are. You have to know your chord inversions. You have to know this. How you learn it is your own business but you have to know it one way or another.

I think Reg's approach is very good for people who have to sightread a lot. But then, Carol Kaye is a world class sightreader and doesn't think in positions and (gently) discourages the "position" approach. She's more of an 'along-the-neck' player. Maybe more of a chord-form player. But through grit, I've learned that some of her fingerings---which at first seemed willfully difficult to me---actually make things easier when I get them under my fingers instead of carping about how different they are from other fingerings I have tried. (Not that she has a lot of weird fingerings, but she does move along the neck more readily than I was comfortable with as a "position player". But for many things, moving along the neck is much easier.

Back to Reg:as he says, any of these ways can work. A lot depends on what you want to do. Various approaches make some things easier / more familiar than others.

I like the 5 position thing Jimmy Bruno teaches. I learned that. I have it down.

I like Reg's 7 position thing because it makes the 2nd finger the root reference for everything and that helps me sense where the other notes are in relation to the one I'm playing. I also prefer 1st finger stretches to 4th finger stretches. (I didn't at first. The other way was more familiar to me, but after some time, I find this way has become more comfortable when playing.) This approach also makes me more comfortable playing along the neck.

I like Carol's approach because she focuses on chord tones and phrases rather than scales. (She's not as anti-scale as she sometimes sounds, but does think it's a mistake to overstress them.)

[Reg]

Yea... Tal typo... Bb mixo... fixed.... Sorry my post started out in Gmaj... and I spaced...

First... all the 7 positions become one 12 fret pattern. They are a process for the fretboard to become one pattern.... Technically

A possible wall at least for me.... when I want to use that D-7b5.... which is a Modal Diatonic sub for Bb7 mixo....

Say I want to play a pentatonic pattern from D-7b5... (D F Ab Bb C ) and then start to expand again... Modal interchange to D7 alt..... You could just say I'm borrowing... Ebmaj become Ebmin...then Ebmm... and the pentatonic pattern is just Bb9 etc...

But that is a different relationship... the mental process is different and the results are different.... I don't want an Eb relationship...I'm after and hearing Bb mixo. as beginning reference and the relative diatonic 3rd above D-7b5 is also a Tonic.

Eb is not in the picture or sound... unless I choose or the music goes there.

An analogy could be....you want to use the numbers 1 through 7... that is the system... But skip two... 3 and 7.... you can still use other numbers to work with.... but your missing 3 and 7.

5 positions has a sound etc... anything will work if you practice it enough, at least to a level. So does 2 positions etc...

It's like ... I'm going to play Bb7altered.... so yea that's Cbmm down a half step....

Lets take a poll.... see what's used and see what the results are.... Sight reading ... not having to stare at fretboard when playing... how much time to be able to play new music there are probable many possible results from different systems...

would be fun to see.

Mark... just want to say I have 5 positions down... also can play two positions.... I don't really think what position I'm in.... If i'm playing or reading or hearing... whatever.... And it's Bbmixo.... the entire neck is Bbmixo.... if it's Bb7 chord tones... again the fretboard is Bb7 chord tones. I use different fingerings to create style, feel, articulations... anything musical I'm after.

Although... I also use mechanical positions.... patterns to create lick like playing. Play a lick in Bbmixo in 5th position... then create a back and forth groove between that Bbmixo lick and then play the same pattern up a diatonic 3rd... up to D locrian and use the melodic pattern as reference and play a lead or top note pattern on top of that mechanical movable pattern.... the Bb mixo up to D Loc..... somewhat like how I comp... I play lead lines and licks on top of chords and chord patterns...

The difference is the Chords and chord patterns mechanically move, like the mechanical lick Bb mixo to D Loc.

Generally this is how I might use Modal Interchange... the chord Patterns or the Mechanical Licks, both below a lead line or like lick use harmonic movement from Modal Interchange.... Like changing a chord pattern to Imply Bb lydian Dominant as compared to Bbmixo. There is more than enough Musical material to think and work with... without thinking about how to finger it etc...

[Tal_175]

Say I want to play a pentatonic pattern from D-7b5... (D F Ab Bb C ) and then start to expand again... Modal interchange to D7 alt..... You could just say I'm borrowing... Ebmaj become Ebmin...then Ebmm... and the pentatonic pattern is just Bb9 etc...

But that is a different relationship... the mental process is different and the results are different.... I don't want an Eb relationship...I'm after and hearing Bb mixo. as beginning reference and the relative diatonic 3rd above D-7b5 is also a Tonic.

If I understand this correctly, with 7 position system one could temporarily shift the central reference to any one of these positions while keeping the layout the same or similar (by making minor modifications). The other positions just become the "modes" of this new center (pardon the language). With 5 positions you got 2 less possible focal points without having to completely change the layout.
So here Bb7 and D-7b5 can both be the same tonic function (a modal moment in the tune with x bars of static Bb7?) or they can be dominant to Eb maj or a Bb7 lick parallel shifted to D (making a D7alt) can imply modal interchange (Eb MM).
A system with a fewer positions make some of these more cumbersome. Say 5 positions system means 5 references to readily choose from. Or one would have to shift to a different 5 position.
To be honest, these modal shifts is not something I've explored in my playing. Harmonic analysis of the tunes I've played always suggested this major key to that major key to this relative minor. This makes it easy to map different layouts ( 5 position or what not) to different parts of the tune. Perhaps I'll hit the wall if I start to employ some of the modal devices Reg mentions.

[pauln]

Might we pause a moment to clarify something?

The question "Do you use arpeggio shapes, major scale shapes, or something else?" seems confusing or possibly misleading because it is not clear what is the object medium of the answer... in other words, if someone answers that "Yes" they use arpeggio shapes, they are not necessarily indicating whether these shapes are made manifest conceptually with regard to the finger board itself, or to fingering positions applied to the finger board; the difference being that in the first case one's "shape" might be a set of fret/string combinations (with indefinite fingering possibilities) whereas the latter might be a specific fingering pattern with respect to a position on the finger board.

Ask yourself:

- when I select what to play, is it a pattern on the finger board which might be positioned and fingered in an arbitrary way?
- when I select what to play, is it a pattern of fingering within a position which might be played only one way?

So, when you say pattern or shape, do you mean finger board patterns or fingering patterns?

I'm reading posts that are not making this clear (maybe I'm not being clear myself); it is a subtle difference... makes a big difference in how it feels when playing.

Back in post #14 I suggested a related distinction between "forms" and "figures" but I have not seen anyone comment on it.

[fep]

I think the important question is whether your method uses "forms" (shapes or note names) upon which you must apply modifications (adjustment to the shape or alteration of the notes), or if your method uses "figures" which already contain the shapes or notes required. "Figures" are not in this sense numerical or geometric; they are things one has "figured out"... how to play them, how to hear them, how to recognize their potential harmonic relationship in context.

The use of figures means knowing more of them than knowing forms, but the advantage of figures is that they may be applied immediately without cognitive analysis and adjustment... it takes more time and effort to learn figures, but in the long run they can be played much faster with much less attention.

Everything I do on the guitar is a figure, selected by ear.

Just so I understand, how does a figure differ from a lick? Or is a figure the same as a lick?

[pauln]

Good point; I was not very clear when I wrote "Everything I do on the guitar is a figure, selected by ear."

I guess the main difference comes of what is considered input and output. Licks are input solutions waiting for the right output application, so tend to come first and get applied, whereas with figures, musical ideas are the input and come first, and then are parsed into figures for translation to output through the instrument.

To me, a lick is something learned perhaps specifically for a tune, or a situation that occurs in numerous tunes (certain progression changes), etc., and may tend to become instances from a input "bag of tricks" acting like a reserve for improvisation output content. "Quoting" can serve this, too. The main thing about licks is that they are preformed, sporadic, occasional, not to be overdone input.

"Figures" are more like the sound-grammar comprising vocabulary (where vocabulary is the meta-language of figures) , the translator in the process between the mental ear and the instrument, and more continuous... more like the underlying means by which one plays. Musical ideas (heard in one's mental ear) are basically parsed into known figures for execution. Figures include even the smallest elements - relative pitches, intervals, up to multiple progression changes and song forms.

[fep]

I think it might be a matter of definition to some degree although the real small elements certainly wouldn't be considered a lick. The reason I asked is Carl Verheyen talks about a big part of his learning and practice is keeping a "Lick Diary" which he has been doing for decades.

Licks or figures or?...:

[pauln]

The majority of my figures are relations between sub-figures - depending on context, I know which figures may be substituted with other figures, so most figures are actually multi-branched with respect to the harmony or change... much more open ended than a bare lick, so this works well with a sound oriented selection process (playing by ear).

That said, I'm sure that Carl's lick diary includes much more than the bare licks as a series of pitches; he not only knows what they sound like, but within which harmonic contexts they sound right, which styles with which they sound appropriate or authentic, etc. Furthermore, I'm sure he too includes various relationships among the licks - which licks may be substituted for others in various harmonic contexts... branches contingent on what they will sound like within the changes.

At that level of playing, licks, figures, vocabulary, and improvisation ultimately blend indistinguishably, which is what I think most of us strive for, I certainly do.

[fep]

At that level of playing, licks, figures, vocabulary, and improvisation ultimately blend indistinguishably, which is what I think most of us strive for, I certainly do.

Yes, this is what I was thinking also and why I made that last post.

[WillMbCdn5]

Reg has made a distinction a number of times in various places when talking about some of this stuff which I find interesting -

Technical Skills and Musical Skills

leads to

Practicing technical skills and practicing musical skills

leads to

Practicing technical performance skills and practicing musical performance skills

I think we often confuse where things fit in that scheme of things .

Will

[matt.guitarteacher]

Reg has made a distinction a number of times in various places when talking about some of this stuff which I find interesting -

Technical Skills and Musical Skills

leads to

Practicing technical skills and practicing musical skills

leads to

Practicing technical performance skills and practicing musical performance skills

I think we often confuse where things fit in that scheme of things .

Will

Yeah. I think it also does a lot to answer the age-old supposed dichotomy on the forums: musical aspects vs technique. Not one of the other. Of course, one determines what's possible with the other...

[princeplanet]

... something else....