Caged Method Do you use it?

[bobsguitars09]

I have a friend who's teacher uses the Caged method for all his students
for chords and scales.

What are the pluses of learning this method?

What are the minuses if any?

[mr. beaumont]

I don't use it, only because it's simply not what I learned...however, I've been told the way I view the fretboard is rather similar to CAGED, but I don't relate things back to the major and minor triads--chords harmonized to the seventh is my general "simplest forms" (not that I don't know and use triads!)

The only pitfall would be learning it as a completely visual system and not taking the fretboard as a "named" entity as well. So while it's fine to understand that, say, an Eb major is a C "shape" from the sixth fret, fifth string root--you must also know that Eb major is Eb F G Ab Bb C D and know a Eb major chord is Eb, G, Bb, etc, etc.

The guitar is a VERY visual instrument--it's blessing and it's curse.

[docbop]

No it came about during the years I had stopped playing. There are so many different finger pattern systems for major scales some with shifts, others stretches, n notes per string, and so on. Some even call them other names to avoid word scale. In the end try a few and see what works for you technique wise, then learn where the scale degrees lie within, the arps, intervals, chord forms, etc. Take what you like and learn it inside out.

[JonR]

I taught myself, and learned the fretboard intuitively in a way that closely resembles CAGED - a system I didn't hear about until many years later. (It began with using a capo to make hard keys easy, eg capo on fret 3 so that a "C" shape became Eb.)

IOW, it's a very "natural" system in that it uses the chord shapes familiar to every beginner, as "stepping stones" up the neck. It's also good in that one can link scales to each shape - assuming one has learned those scales in open position - which is preferable (IMO) to learning scale patterns divorced from chord shapes.

Of course, there are disadvantages. As with any system, it can be too tightly or narrowly defined and applied. It's not the last word in fretboard knowledge!
There is a problem with naming a chord differently from how it sounds (eg using a "C" form to play an F chord at 5th fret). So it's important to always be aware of what notes one is playing, at least the root note of the chord.
Also, it's important to stay aware that each shape can fit 3 different scales (because the chord could be I, IV or V) - and likewise that a major scale pattern developed from one shape will also contain other shapes.
Thirdly, the system has a problem with minor chords, because there are no easy open shapes for Cm or Gm - they have to be partial.

Lastly, it is only a beginner tool for starting to learn the fretboard. By the time one starts to approach jazz, that knowledge should already be well established. One shouldn't have to be making conscious computations about which chord form gives you which chord sound.... And as mr beaumont says, 7th chord forms are the staples of jazz, not triads. (Which is not to say that triad knowledge doesn't precede 7th knowledge.)

But I have to say that the way I learned has (accidentally) stood me in good stead when it comes to improvisation. I've never suffered any confusion about what to do or what to play. I don't think it's a coincidence that I never learned any scale patterns, and learned chords and melodies instead (in all positions on the neck). I was never in a position where I had any knowledge that I didn't know how to apply.

In answer to the teaching question. I do use the system with my students, but I keep it open ended. I stress the importance of note knowledge as well as shape/pattern knowledge. I don't teach it until the students are totally comfortable with open position chords and scales, and are starting to explore the neck, with riffs, power chords, etc. It has to be introduced as an aid (one of many) to comprehending the neck, not a set of rules one must follow.

[JakeAcci]

I actually learned via 7 boxed modal shapes. I used to teach my students that way but it usually went pretty badly. The boxes worked for me but only because I played the heck out of them night and day when I first learned. They aren't simple enough to be a good method of seeing keys.

Now with my students we do key signatures and open position scales to understand the idea of different scales, going up the neck we use CAGED to start.

I think the CAGED system is great. It's simple and it's 4-5 fingerings that cover the entire neck for every key. Obviously it's just a start. I think any way of seeing the fretboard is good...1 string scales, three note per string scales, four note per string scales, etc.

Knowing the note names becomes essential eventually. I like this guy's idea: Jazz Science | Practice Ideas From the Woodshed

[matt.guitarteacher]

Also, it's important to stay aware that each shape can fit 3 different scales (because the chord could be I, IV or V) - and likewise that a major scale pattern developed from one shape will also contain other shapes.
Thirdly, the system has a problem with minor chords, because there are no easy open shapes for Cm or Gm - they have to be partial.

I relate very much to what you and Mr. B are saying. I kind of accidentally came upon something similar to a CAGED way of thinking years ago, especially with chords. I find that the biggest hurdle for incorporating this as a system to teach others about chords/scales is the parallel and relative minor thing. It's always a problem for beginners in theory anyway, but if you call the "C shape" a "C shape" when you're playing in it's relative, A minor, that seems like it would get confusing.

As a teacher, I've just used it as a way of presenting chord shapes, their relationship to corresponding scales, and the order in which they present themselves going up the neck. I do it with major chords/scales, and really have tried to avoid naming the chord type by the corresponding CAGED chord shape for the reasons you other guys mentioned (confusion with naming different from the actual "concert" key) in addition to my own concerns (causing confusion with relative minor).

On another note, everyone who discusses this seems to be someone who kind of happened upon it in their own way. Is there anyone out there who learned CAGED as an actual system? I'd be curious to know what you think.

[MarkRhodes]

Knowing the note names becomes essential eventually. I like this guy's idea: Jazz Science | Practice Ideas From the Woodshed

That was nifty. I printed the graph and will give the exercise five minutes a day to see what happens. (I'm far from a newbie and know the fretboard well, or so I think: perhaps I'll be humbled by vestiges of ignorance and come out knowing much more than before. Hope so!)

[JakeAcci]

That was nifty. I printed the graph and will give the exercise five minutes a day to see what happens. (I'm far from a newbie and know the fretboard well, or so I think: perhaps I'll be humbled by vestiges of ignorance and come out knowing much more than before. Hope so!)

I find it interesting to think of knowing the neck the way a pianist knows the keyboard - know the names of notes, know key signatures, chord spelling in intervals, etc.

Seems more musical, at least in theory, then the way guitarists usually learn - shapes and licks. I wonder if all guitarists would have a lot more harmonic flexibility if they say the notes on the neck rather than fingering patterns. It makes transposition harder for sure...

[matt.guitarteacher]

Actually I am not clear about the word Caged method. May you please explain it..

People have written whole method books on this stuff. It was big a few years ago, kind of like the drop 2 books are now. I was just curious if anyone learned it as a system from a book or teacher and what their thoughts might be abou it.

[JakeAcci]

Actually I am not clear about the word Caged method. May you please explain it..

There's a lot of info on the web about it:
caged guitar - Google Search

[MarkRhodes]

Seems more musical, at least in theory, then the way guitarists usually learn - shapes and licks.

Though it's good to know the notes, I cringe when I hear put downs of "shapes and licks" because Charlie Christian was a "shape" player and so was Herb Ellis. Both were great soloists who could play in "a handful of keys" as Fats Waller put it. (He was talking about piano keys, but Charlie and Herb got around the neck with aplomb.) Duke Ellington said that to play jazz, one had to learn all the licks one could.

Also, if one reads Paul Berliner's "Thinking In Jazz," it was the *norm* for generations of jazz novices to learn licks and quotes from solos of their heroes. This was what "paying one's dues" meant. Further, when a young player could faithfully execute the solo of a master, it was celebrated, not denigrated.

Shapes and licks have much to commend them, starting (for guitarists) with Charlie Christian.

[gingerjazz]

I learned these shapes from a great fusion guitar player who just called each shape by number,shape one,shape two etc,which to this day still seems better to say play a d major scale in shape four ,rather than play a D major scale using the c shape,surely this is less confusing and most of us can count so the point of the shapes going up the neck spelling caged seems no easier than just saying they go up the neck in numerical order but each to his own.The thing i liked about this way was that the shapes never changed their name depending on what you were playing.I have seen books that call a shape the c shape when dealing with major scales then the A shape when its minor scale very confusing.

[JakeAcci]

I learned these shapes from a great fusion guitar player who just called each shape by number,shape one,shape two etc,which to this day still seems better to say play a d major scale in shape four ,rather than play a D major scale using the c shape,surely this is less confusing and most of us can count so the point of the shapes going up the neck spelling caged seems no easier than just saying they go up the neck in numerical order but each to his own.The thing i liked about this way was that the shapes never changed their name depending on what you were playing.I have seen books that call a shape the c shape when dealing with major scales then the A shape when its minor scale very confusing.

I pretty much do it the same way.

[fep]

Do I use it?

I guess I do...

I learned the fretboard, scales, arps and how to build chords based on knowledge of the CAGED system that I was taught. As another poster said, it's a great way to take what you already know and expand upon that knowledge.

But I don't think about it anymore. It's a learning method, and once it's learned, really learned, you don't need to think about it anymore.

Caged being a learning method; I think for anybody that already has a really good understanding of the fretboard and chord construction theory, for them CAGED is not necessary.

[monk]

Though it's good to know the notes, I cringe when I hear put downs of "shapes and licks" because Charlie Christian was a "shape" player and so was Herb Ellis. Both were great soloists who could play in "a handful of keys" as Fats Waller put it. (He was talking about piano keys, but Charlie and Herb got around the neck with aplomb.) Duke Ellington said that to play jazz, one had to learn all the licks one could.

Also, if one reads Paul Berliner's "Thinking In Jazz," it was the *norm* for generations of jazz novices to learn licks and quotes from solos of their heroes. This was what "paying one's dues" meant. Further, when a young player could faithfully execute the solo of a master, it was celebrated, not denigrated.

Shapes and licks have much to commend them, starting (for guitarists) with Charlie Christian.

+1 Amen.

[matt.guitarteacher]

There's a lot of info on the web about it:
caged guitar - Google Search

I kind of focused more in on the word "method" in my response. This is probably more of what he was asking for. I think, for beginners, justinguitar.com is about the best for CAGED. He's got a great layout for grids, simple explanations, his vidoes aren't as dry as most "scaley" lesson-type videos, and he's a great teacher. It's not completely jazz focused.

[MarkRhodes]

I learned these shapes from a great fusion guitar player who just called each shape by number,shape one,shape two etc,which to this day still seems better to say play a d major scale in shape four ,rather than play a D major scale using the c shape,surely this is less confusing and most of us can count so the point of the shapes going up the neck spelling caged seems no easier than just saying they go up the neck in numerical order but each to his own.The thing i liked about this way was that the shapes never changed their name depending on what you were playing.I have seen books that call a shape the c shape when dealing with major scales then the A shape when its minor scale very confusing.

When Herb Ellis teaches "the shape system" in his books he calls the shapes by number too. His system isn't "CAGED." It's actually FAD, though he never calls it that. He played out of those shapes the same way Charlie Christian did. He refers to them by number, though he makes clear that the student can number them another way if they like. It's hard to get much simpler than that.

[monk]

When Herb Ellis teaches "the shape system" in his books he calls the shapes by number too. His system isn't "CAGED." It's actually FAD, though he never calls it that. He played out of those shapes the same way Charlie Christian did. He refers to them by number, though he makes clear that the student can number them another way if they like. It's hard to get much simpler than that.

Personally, I think of it as EAC which is how Johnny Smith described it. I can see how it might be easier to think of the E shape as an F shape but for me the C shape points toward playing on the high side of the form and D shape points to the low side.

[fumblefingers]

Do I use it?

I guess I do...

I learned the fretboard, scales, arps and how to build chords based on knowledge of the CAGED system that I was taught. As another poster said, it's a great way to take what you already know and expand upon that knowledge.

But I don't think about it anymore. It's a learning method, and once it's learned, really learned, you don't need to think about it anymore.

Caged being a learning method; I think for anybody that already has a really good understanding of the fretboard and chord construction theory, for them CAGED is not necessary.

ditto.

[JonR]

I learned these shapes from a great fusion guitar player who just called each shape by number,shape one,shape two etc,which to this day still seems better to say play a d major scale in shape four ,rather than play a D major scale using the c shape,surely this is less confusing and most of us can count so the point of the shapes going up the neck spelling caged seems no easier than just saying they go up the neck in numerical order but each to his own.The thing i liked about this way was that the shapes never changed their name depending on what you were playing.

I agree numbers for the shapes seems better - at least in breaking the link with chord sounds.
However, you then run up against the other various usages of numbers: fret numbers, chord extensions, chord functions, finger numbers....
Anyone like to play me a V7 ("five seven") chord using shape 3 on fret 6, strings 5, 4, 3 and 2 and fingers 1, 2, 3 an 4?

I have seen books that call a shape the c shape when dealing with major scales then the A shape when its minor scale very confusing.

Yes, that sounds dumb. There is a specific "Am" shape, after all, no need to call it a "C" shape.
However, it's true that a scale pattern based on a "C" shape contains various other chord shapes within it...

I can see the advantage in simply learning the notes - which don't change - and then just referring to fret position by number; other numbers becoming superfluous (well OK except chord function and extensions ). Eg "G major scale 7th position" seems more sensible than "G major scale using C shape on 7th fret". You just have to know the notes - which you ought to learn eventually anyway.

[bass2man]

yes, I learned the CAGED system from the ground up when I started...but I used Jimmy Bruno's method of calling the 5 shapes "forms" with each form named by the starting note in the scale on the low E...so his 5 forms are form 2,3,5,6 and 7..e.g. paying a C major scale starting on the low E string, 3rd fret, the G, is form 5..G is the 5th note in the C major scale or playing a Cmajor scale starting on the Low E, 7th fret, the B, is Form 7..and so on..

Lot less confusing than thinking shape C to play Am or whatever...and teaches you to learn the notes in a scale by name...better in the long run anyway...IMHO

[MarkRhodes]

Personally, I think of it as EAC which is how Johnny Smith described it. I can see how it might be easier to think of the E shape as an F shape but for me the C shape points toward playing on the high side of the form and D shape points to the low side.

I can see the resemblance. "EAC" would've worked fine for me, though I learned it "FAD" and am happy to keep thinking of it that way. I find "D" more useful than "C" as a grip on the top three strings, where much soloing takes place, but it's just another way of naming the same system.

[JonnyPac]

I hate the name, but like the shapes. I'm not into running scales too much, but if I do, I use them. The three-per-string alternative if much harder for me to "hear". I really just think interval and build everything from there on the go.

[zigzag]

CAGED method is simply a way of ordering scale shapes/forms. I find it useful while I am still learning scales (and differing ways of practicing scales) but I anticipate that I will no longer need that method once it is ingrained in my psyche.