Guitar Fretboard Geometry

[bobsguitars09]

I have been getting into the idea of starting to learn the fretboard based on some sort of Fretboard Geometry.

Any good videos/books or advice/secrets on this subject?

[docbop]

Been there, done that, moved on. In beginning it's kind of interesting, but its usefulness diminishes fast. What I would say that helps is practicing scales in intervals and getting used to the different possible ways to finger intervals is a valuable tool.

I would also say check out Mick Goodrick book The Advancing Guitarist the part on playing on one string. That really starts making things fall in place.

Howard Morgan has a Truefire course that the first part is on viewing the fretboard layout that I found interesting. Especially the part on moving chord shapes across the neck and relation to the B string.

[ksjazzguitar]

Yeah, I cringe at the word "geometry." Maybe you don't mean it that way, but some people try and look for some DaVinci Code patterns or some crap like that. I think that that should be avoided like the plague. The fretboard should be understood musically, not mathematically.

That being said, it is a very visual instrument. There is some value to seeing shapes, as long as you don't get too carried away with it, as long as you relate it back to something musical.

I don't know what level you are. Learn your scales. Learn your arpeggios - not just as patterns, but what the function of each note is. Learn your chord voicings and learn what function each note has and how it wants to resolve into the next chord. I think that that is a musical way to get going.

Peace,
Kevin

[jayx123]

I agree with Kevin, shapes are good but need to be learned musically you need to learn how the shape sounds how different intervals in the shape sound once you have that connection you can create musical phrases you hear in your head over that shape.

[JonR]

I agree absolutely with kevin. I'm not accusing the OP of this, but there is a lot of near-mystical crap out there about the "geometry" of the fretboard.
Of course, the patterns are useful in learning the notes, intervals and chords we need. But if we change the tuning, the "geometry" all disappears - while the music remains the same. IOW, the geometry is arbitrary and meaningless.

I don't know the books docbop recommends, but I've seen both commonly recommended elsewhere, particularly Goodrick's. (I didn't know he uses a one-string concept, but I also use that in my teaching, understanding a scale up one string before applying it across the strings.)

Personally, I like the CAGED system. Of course, it depends on standard tuning, like any pattern system, but at least it works from the chord shapes familiar to any beginner - IOW, it has musical meaning, not just a geometrical attraction. (It's how I learned the fretboard, teaching myself, before I realised it was a "system", with a name, and commercial potential... )

Another book I've seen highly recommended - which seems to be in this ballpark - is Ted Greene's Chord Chemistry. I've seen a few pages from it, and, while the info is excellent, the hand-drawn chord diagrams give it a cluttered look which may not be to everyone's taste...

[whatswisdom]

Having read lots of posts since joining up a few weeks ago, I've been playing the major scale in all 12 keys via the cycle of 5ths from first position. Starting with F > Bb > Eb ... etc. I highly recommend this endeavor. This is one-stop-shopping: you get the best left-hand workout while learning all the different patterns/shapes--and the notes if you recite them while you play. It's easy then to apply it to the jazz minor scale... Goodrick's one-string concept (the first skill introduced) is excellent, especially if you record the vamps and play over them... I have one other recommendation to offer: Wayne Krantz: An Improviser's OS. After you read this book and apply his method, you will know the fingerboard inside out.

[MarkRhodes]

The fretboard should be understood musically, not mathematically.

That being said, it is a very visual instrument.

Exactly. I find it bizarre that some guitarists encourage students to ignore that. (Or seem to, at any rate.) Take what the instrument gives and be grateful for it.

[ksjazzguitar]

Exactly. I find it bizarre that some guitarists encourage students to ignore that. (Or seem to, at any rate.) Take what the instrument gives and be grateful for it.

Yeah, I understand the motive - they want to avoid mechanical playing based on non-musical elements. One of my first teachers was like that so I avoided it for a long time. Then I had a great teacher in New Orleans, that said, "Hey, just see this shape and how the notes relate to that. See how that shape resolves to that shape." Then he made me go back and make sure that I understood what each of those notes were and how they were resolving and to learn to hear how they sound. I guess the fear is that people will stop at the "see the shape" step.

But yeah, we should take advantage of what the instrument offers. I always tell students, "The guitar is a very visual instrument - that is a blessing and a curse. It can be a tremendous tool, but can also turn into a crutch if you let it."

Peace,
Kevin

[cosmic gumbo]

Learning the fretboard is about geography, not geometry.

[MarkRhodes]

Of course, the patterns are useful in learning the notes, intervals and chords we need. But if we change the tuning, the "geometry" all disappears - while the music remains the same. IOW, the geometry is arbitrary and meaningless.

This does not follow. If you change the tuning of a piano, middle C will end up somewhere else but that doesn't mean where it is now is arbitrary. ("Arbitrary and meaningless" is not the opposite of "necessary.") Besides, standard guitar tuning is just that, standard. Why think it is going to change, or that one shouldn't have a visual understanding of the guitar's layout because someday it might change? Hey, maybe next year all piano keys will be painted pink, so no one learning to play *now* should notice that some keys are black and others are white, or how sometimes you find two white keys in row but never two black keys in a row...

[JonR]

This does not follow. If you change the tuning of a piano, middle C will end up somewhere else but that doesn't mean where it is now is arbitrary. ("Arbitrary and meaningless" is not the opposite of "necessary.") Besides, standard guitar tuning is just that, standard. Why think it is going to change, or that one shouldn't have a visual understanding of the guitar's layout because someday it might change? Hey, maybe next year all piano keys will be painted pink, so no one learning to play *now* should notice that some keys are black and others are white, or how sometimes you find two white keys in row but never two black keys in a row...

Fair points.
I'm not opposed to visual aids to understanding, as I said before. That's what CAGED is, eg. The visual white-black pattern of piano keys is a musically meaningful one, too.
It's just that there's some unfortunate connotations to the concept of "geometry", which I've encountered before in reference to the fretboard. There are some people who are fascinated with symmetry and magical kinds of design (triangles, etc), and think they have found something meaningful when they see such shapes on the fretboard. They want (or expect) music to fall into some kind of beautiful geometric arrangement or mystical design - and it doesn't. (Occasionally it might do, but it's generally irrelevant.)
It's a very natural human impulse, to look for patterns, and (often) to see them where there is none.
As kevin says, we can use that sense when learning - and in fact we use it all the time when playing - but we need to understand the musical connections (the patterns in sound and time), and not get distracted by the visual ones.

[MarkRhodes]

Learning the fretboard is about geography, not geometry.

Great line. Though I think in this discussion, "geometry" just means visually. Your view is more akin to Sokolow's "fretboard roadmaps."

[pingu]

I have been getting into the idea of starting to learn the fretboard based on some sort of Fretboard Geometry.

Any good videos/books or advice/secrets on this subject?

Check Pat Martino's website he's really looked into that stuff
didn't work for me but we all use whatever works for us right ?

[pingu]

Been there, done that, moved on. In beginning it's kind of interesting, but its usefulness diminishes fast..

fnar !

[MarkRhodes]

There are some people who are fascinated with symmetry and magical kinds of design (triangles, etc), and think they have found something meaningful when they see such shapes on the fretboard. They want (or expect) music to fall into some kind of beautiful geometric arrangement or mystical design - and it doesn't. (Occasionally it might do, but it's generally irrelevant.)

I know what you mean. Many ancients felt this way. Indeed, it's why they valued the study of music so highly, though for them, music was "number in time" (-geometry was "number in space"), and studying music had *nothing* to do with learning to play an instrument but only with mathematical relations between tones.

If someone is, um, geared that way, there's really no hope for it, is there? If someone is intensely visual, they're going to approach things visually. And why shouldn't they?

Some people---not only engineers---take a very systematic approach to everything, including music, and come up with complex systems for understanding / explaining music. They *want* a system, and if they can't find one handy, they'll make up their own. I say, let 'em. It's how their minds work, and if that gets 'em across the finish line of playing good music, good for them.

Others are theory-averse and feel "boxed in" by overly theoretical approaches and want things to be more "intuitive." If they can play good music that way, good for them.

Though I've never cared to tinker with appliances or cars--or guitars, for that matter--I've learned a lot playing around with riffs, chord changes, voicings, turning play into a song. That's my "briar patch" but it certainly isn't everyone's.

[jzucker]

I took a few lessons with Howard Roberts and studied for a year with Pat Martino who was really big on this but IMO, this type of approach is great after you already have the ability to improvise over standard jazz chord changes. I would not advise beginning players to spend much time on the geometric approach.

[jster]

I took a few lessons with Howard Roberts and studied for a year with Pat Martino who was really big on this but IMO, this type of approach is great after you already have the ability to improvise over standard jazz chord changes. I would not advise beginning players to spend much time on the geometric approach.

Does Martino's stuff connect with anybody else's? When I looked at it, the first half seemed pretty neat, but the second half seemed unfounded. Would a top player be able to reinterpret all of what Pat is saying? Or would he just think Pat was some kinda mystic, i.e. untethered to conventional guitar theory?

[lindydanny]

What did the baby tree say to the momma tree?
"Gee, om a tree!"

[Jazzaluk]

Does Martino's stuff connect with anybody else's? When I looked at it, the first half seemed pretty neat, but the second half seemed unfounded. Would a top player be able to reinterpret all of what Pat is saying? Or would he just think Pat was some kinda mystic, i.e. untethered to conventional guitar theory?

The symmetries on the guitar can be used to great advantage when organizing sounds and chord relationships. Barry Harris' approach is actually easier to see on the guitar than on the piano because of the fretboard reveals the symmetry.

I don't think it is smart to make fretboard geometry the center or total focus of attention though.

I don't even think that Martino really focuses that much on the geometry. He gets all mystical about it but i think he just applies the symmetries on the fretboard to his advantage. He seems to describe everything he does in a mystical way ... Just how he rolls I suppose.

Personally, I think that too much is read into his approach to the freeboard ... iMO It is just positional playing based on minor chord shapes as opposed to major chord shapes. It is like CAGED but more robust and flexible.

[JonnyPac]

INTERVALS: the Rosetta stone of the fretboard. See/hear them, memorizes the notes and go!

[sc06yl]

I think you should learn whatever method fits your style of learning.

Unfortunately because of the western style of education, we are accustomed to learning through pattern recognition and repetition of linear steps, but there are other ways...Just a thought...

[Double 07]

The symmetries on the guitar can be used to great advantage when organizing sounds and chord relationships. Barry Harris' approach is actually easier to see on the guitar than on the piano because of the fretboard reveals the symmetry.

I don't think it is smart to make fretboard geometry the center or total focus of attention though.

I don't even think that Martino really focuses that much on the geometry. He gets all mystical about it but i think he just applies the symmetries on the fretboard to his advantage. He seems to describe everything he does in a mystical way ... Just how he rolls I suppose.

Personally, I think that too much is read into his approach to the freeboard ... iMO It is just positional playing based on minor chord shapes as opposed to major chord shapes. It is like CAGED but more robust and flexible.

Totally agree with your statements here jazzaluk. I Personally found his approach very useful as a way of keeping all of the theoretical information organized in my brain. The information that I was actually already utilizing everyday. Grateful the musical genius has been gracious enough to share so much about his approach to guitar. That being said the whole "mystical geometry" part didn't resonate with me. Like you said too much is read into that.

[Anthony7]

just study interval positioning relating to each other, you wont go wrong

[brwnhornet59]

just study interval positioning relating to each other, you wont go wrong

+1 on that!!

[Vihar]

I think you should learn whatever method fits your style of learning.

Unfortunately because of the western style of education, we are accustomed to learning through pattern recognition and repetition of linear steps, but there are other ways...Just a thought...

Ok I missed this post then, but what are those other ways? I'm curious.