Indepth Information on Three Note Per String vs 5 Shapes

[bobsguitars09]

Anyone familiar with both methods that can give some detailed information on the pro and cons of both the Three Note Per String and 5 Shapes scale shapes?

I have seen a bit of info online in the past but it didn't go very far.

I am interested in all the aspects. one example would be. How does each shape method work with visualizing chord shapes? How do you convert 5 shapes to other scales besides the pentatonic? and on and on. I there a hidden viewpoint while using the 5 shapes to visualize chords inside the 5 shapes better than the 3 note per string?

I have noticed that the 5 shapes pretty much take up the some exact note areas as the 3 note ones with 2 shapes for every one. and of course lydian being inside of phrygian and ionian in locrian anyway.

The only thing I can see really is the 3 note per string scale shapes are easier to play faster and apply sweeps to. but the is a much larger picture I am sure. care to share?

For those who use the 5 shapes. how do approach maintaining the same speed with the 2 note per string sections in each shape?

One benefit I see of the 3 note shapes is that you can memorize all the keys easier. Flat keys (most) start on F and sharp keys start on F#. I was confused with this aspect when trying to memorize the 5 shapes. any tips for memorizing the 5 shapes in 12 keys? seems a bit more random?

[aniss1001]

Hmm... I'm not sure what you're asking here. Your questions confused me a bit ?!

Anyway I was thinking about posting a similar topic. That is when playing / practicing the major and melodic minor modes do you guys use the caged system (5 positions) only or the 3-notes-per-string system (7 positions) also??

I noticed that many books and other instructional material mentions only the caged system (for example Pat Martino's books). So I was thinking that perhaps I have made life complicated for myself by practicing / using BOTH systems. That is whenever I need to learn something in all positions there are 12 of them rather than 5.

Anyway I think the 3-notes-per-string system is useful in particular when doing scale runs / patterns and such, and as a means of changing from one caged position to another. But when improvising more "melodically" I tend to use the caged system, partly because these positions each has a pentantonic "equivalent".

But I'd like to hear what others have to say about it.

[AmundLauritzen]

The three note per string patterns lend themselves to playing scales like scales, and that's about the only use for them in my opinion. Once you start playing melodies that don't involve three note per string with those shapes, you'll find yourself stretching awkwardly, and the caged positions would be more economical then.
I found that for sheets of sound kind of playing, it works better for me to compose phrases beforehand so I can make sure that the pick follows the string change. Downstroke for higher string, upstroke for lower string. That ensures fluidity while avoiding awkward stretches. I have particularly small hands, so maybe someone with bigger hands would prefer the 3 note per string shapes. I don't know.
For me the caged system works perfectly. There are problems with symmetrical scales though, particularly whole tone. But there is always a solution. For whole tone, 3 notes per string works fine, but there are also 2 notes per string options. Diminished works best with 3 or four notes per string. On the first four strings, you can play diminished without moving your hand around. When descending down the other strings, I like to use the first finger. When ascending, I like to shift with the fourth finger.
There are many fingering possibilities. I think the best thing is to find one that is comfortable for your hands.
Pentatonics are almost universally played with two notes per string, but I've seen some players like Jack Zucker play them very elegantly with three notes per string.
I'd say try different things and stick with what works well for you.

[fumblefingers]

i have observed that a system that relies on stretching can be hard on your hands (or at least my hands). the finger tendons in particular can become stressed.

but if you really prefer that system i suggest that you use a shorter scale guitar (like 25, 24.75 etc) unless your fingers are as long as bananas.

spealing very generally, i also believe that you have better strength, control, and tone quaility when your hand is not stretched. you can get more of the fingertip onto the string and can point down at the fretboard in a straighter, hammer like fashion. on the other hand, such considerations may matter little when you play cranked up with loads of distortion and sustain.

[Helgo]

Hi there.

I am not a very good or very experienced player, so don´t take my advise too seriously.

I switched from CAGED (of which I admittedly only used A and E), to 3-note-per-string a couple of weeks ago and here´s what I wrote about it in another thread.

for me, the advantages are:
- In the arpeggios you always play the note in the arpeggio with the same finger as if playing the scale
- This 7-shapes-system makes it easier for me to use the whole fretboard instead of jumping from one "box" to another

I dislike that I have to change position within one fingering but I hope I will get used to that

I am still getting used to the new system and I am still very slow. But I like it a lot. I think that it really helps me with my fretboard overview and in changing positions while playing.

But who knows what will be in five years, lol

Like Amund said above,

try different things and stick with what works well for you.

Of course this is advice one would hesitate from taking, because "trying it out" would mean several weeks or months of walking down a path and then discovering it might have been a dead end.

Although it is wise to think about which path to take beforehand and to ask others for their experiences, after all it is your path and one man´s dead end is another man´s route to freedom... (but of course you already know that...)

Cheers,
H.

[brwnhornet59]

Learn every fingering every way and everywhere you can. Learn off of all strings for root positions. All fingerings are important, IMO. Learn to start on the root off of every finger. Learn scales on 1 string, then two etc... 1 octave positions regardless of where they are are very important. Same with arps. Knowing 3 and 4 note 1 octave arps everywhere will pay off in the end. Being able to start on any string in any key is the goal.

All systems have advantages and drawbacks. The more you know the easier it is to overcome. Like Amund said, after awhile when you start playing musical lines, scales fade away, then it all about where you can grab what you are looking for with the greatest ease and the most effectiveness.

That's my two cents. BTW, I am not there yet, but I sure am trying!

[monk]

Which system, 3NS or CAGED, to use should depend on what your your goal is.

If you want to play scales really fast or play scalar based music such as 1980s through millennial rock or some types of fusion then 3NS is probably the way to go.

If you are going to play music that is based on chord tones like swing, bebop or soul jazz/hard bop then CAGED allows you to see the fingerboard as an interlocking set of chord tones that can be used as a springboard to create lines and solos.

The guitar styles of Django Reinhardt, Charlie Christian and Wes Montgomery are based on utilizing chord shapes rather than scales. They fingered their runs and phrases from chord shapes rather than scale shapes. This is a subtle difference but one that can make soloing easy rather than awkward.

Learning to play scales and scale patterns is great to teach the fingers to play notes in a coordinated fashion and to learn the location of those notes; after that their usefulness diminishes.

Pianists, horn players, violinists et al. learn scales and then get on with making music. For some unfathomable reason, guitarists learn scales and then obsess over learning more scales or scale fingerings. Scales aren't music they're a tool. That's why so many of the more experienced players here recommend learning arpeggios, both triad and diatonic seventh, and learning to play them over the chord progressions of tunes.

The goal is to learn to play music not to spend some indeterminable amount of time playing scales and exercises hoping that someday what you play will sound like music instead of scales and exercises.


For what it's worth. I was a scale guy who struggled with modes until I started transcribing Django and Christian. That's when the lights came on for me. After that things got much easier.
　
　

[aniss1001]

If you want to play scales really fast or play scalar based music such as 1980s through millennial rock or some types of fusion then 3NS is probably the way to go........

1st off... I don't think the 3-notes-per-string system is limited to certain styles of music. I think a lot or most modern jazz players use BOTH systems (eg. Scofield, Metheny..).

And I don't think that anyone uses the 3-notes-per-string system ONLY. It's either the caged system only or both.

And I certainly don't agree that practicing scales / patterns is a FINGER excercise only as you imply. Scales can be building blocks for improvising just as chords and arps are. Most modern players (guitar or otherwise) use scales / patterns a lot in their playing.

Oh and by modern I mean post-50's! The players you mention are VERY old(school). You made some good points in your post though, but it needed to be challenged. Just remember that not everybody want to sound like some dude who died over half a century ago

[JakeAcci]

I don't really practice scales in such a structured way. I create or transcribe lines I like and then try to figure out the best way to play those lines. In a sense, the line comes before the scale, not the other way around.

I have experimented with caged, boxed modal fingers, 3 notes per string, 2 notes per string, 4 notes per string, open position scales, the 12-keys-in-every-5-fret concept, piano-pedal like scales that involve ringing harmonics or open strings, 1 string scales, 3 octave scales that climb the fretboard...ETC! They all have their uses but I've explored them more for curiosity than actual jazz improvisation.

Application, application, application!

I often think about this - the time you spend practicing a scale you could be practicing a line or a tune...

[brwnhornet59]

And I don't think that anyone uses the 3-notes-per-string system ONLY. It's either the caged system only or both.

And I certainly don't agree that practicing scales / patterns is a FINGER excercise only as you imply. Scales can be building blocks for improvising just as chords and arps are.

Though I agree with you, I think what Monk was alluding to was the trap a lot of players get into when playing scales scales scales, but never play lines or make music. I don't care which and or all of the systems someone uses, if they do not avail themselves to sound musical, then they are doomed to sound like someone playing exercises and practicing.


But as you inferred, and I stated earlier the more one has in their arsenal to bring to bay at will, the better off their playing and overall experience becomes. Take every resource available and assimilate it, make it your own. That is where any satisfaction I have ever got came from, not that I am all of that, but I want to be.

Good points, all coming from different perspectives.

[Drumbler]

Below is a C Bebop Dominant run from C to C. The \ is a slide.

It uses 3 nps for the 5-3-1 on the B string but it really combines both types of playing.

My gist is to use whatever tool is appropriate for the job and not get too rigid on your method. Use everything.



--8-7-6-5\3--------------------------------------
--------------6\5-3-1--------------------------
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------

[pauln]

The conceptual issue with CAGED is that once your actual execution steps outside the frame, a lot of the "familiarity" that system offers is lost.

The executional feature of three notes per string is that it helps the right hand but places patterns on the left which get lost when you go outside the pattern.

There is a "third way", I don't know its name...

It maps to CAGED and TNPS (positions) by identifying the roots of the scale exclusively, but does not enforce any particular position or pattern - it is mechanically more free in execution and potentially conceptually more free in making fingering judgements. Here is a way to think of it:

Name the strings 6 5 4 3 2 1 just like you already do.
For the place and scale you are playing, simply code that by identifying the string numbers on which you play the roots...

641
42
52
53
631

By focusing on these notes, you can shuft your actual finger outside or between the CAGED and TNPS forms without getting lost...

[fumblefingers]

The conceptual issue with CAGED is that once your actual execution steps outside the frame, a lot of the "familiarity" that system offers is lost.

The executional feature of three notes per string is that it helps the right hand but places patterns on the left which get lost when you go outside the pattern.

There is a "third way", I don't know its name...

It maps to CAGED and TNPS (positions) by identifying the roots of the scale exclusively, but does not enforce any particular position or pattern - it is mechanically more free in execution and potentially conceptually more free in making fingering judgements. Here is a way to think of it:

Name the strings 6 5 4 3 2 1 just like you already do.
For the place and scale you are playing, simply code that by identifying the string numbers on which you play the roots...

641
42
52
53
631

By focusing on these notes, you can shuft your actual finger outside or between the CAGED and TNPS forms without getting lost...

what exactly do you mean by "execution stepping outside the frame"? can you give me a few practical examples?

[pauln]

Well, for example if you are using the CAGED concept and thinking of the "C" shape, that shape is indicating a major or minor scale, or maybe one of the modes - depending on which place in the shape or pattern you would reference the tonic. All the shape patterns of CAGED are based on major chords (and their relative minors). If you are playing something based on diminished, augmented, or one of the modes of the melodic minor, the information presented by CAGED does not apply.

Similarly for the TNPS pattern concept, once you play diminished, augmented, and the melodic minor modes, the patterns don't apply.

The system I presented is a more general way of navigating the fingerboard by referencing only tonics. This allows the mapping of all of what CAGED offers, and all of what the TNPS offers, but it also serves as a foundation for diminished, augmented, and the melodic modes, and the symmetric scales, and other things. To me it is "more" foundational and also offers a very fast way to conceive a scale change by switching from one of the tonic numbering formula schema to another regardless of whether you shift position of not (it's relative).

Another way to think of it is that instead of learning a lot of things in each of five position or pattern locations that is only the foundation for some things, you learn just five things that serve as the foundation for everything else.

[fumblefingers]

i see what you mean.

regarding CAGED (or the 5 pattern approach), that provides you with a lot - 3 diatonic scales and pentatonic and blues. melodic and harmonic minors can be built from the 5 major patterns.

i agree that the symmetrical scales (whole tone and diminished) don't really need 5 patterns. they're their own animal, so to speak.

generally speaking i believe that one should master:

• all scales and modes in 1,2, and 3 octaves.
• all intervals (3rds through tenths)
• all arpeggios in all inversions, for 2 octaves
• some targeted practice for playing lengthwise along the neck

(thats a hell of a lot of work of course, and will take about 3-6 years full time)

i think that all the fretboard "visualization" you will ever need will be developed as a result.

[JonR]

Well, for example if you are using the CAGED concept and thinking of the "C" shape, that shape is indicating a major or minor scale, or maybe one of the modes - depending on which place in the shape or pattern you would reference the tonic. All the shape patterns of CAGED are based on major chords (and their relative minors).

Yes, but that's not particularly limiting in any diatonic situation. (Just to clarify what you probably mean anyway...)
If you see a CAGED scale pattern based on (say) the "C" shape, then the scale contains (obviously!) chord tones for all the other shapes in the key, not just the tonic.
Eg, for a "C" shape major scale pattern, it's quite easy to see the "G" and "F" shapes in there, as well as the "Am", "Em" and "Dm" shapes.
And of course it doesn't limit you to diatonic phrases anyway - it's easy to use chromatic approaches or passing notes.

If you are playing something based on diminished, augmented, or one of the modes of the melodic minor, the information presented by CAGED does not apply.

Right! That's where CAGED breaks down (or becomes inapplicable).
For melodic minor you can take any major scale pattern and lower the 3rds, but adapting to diminished is not really practical - you need separate dedicated patterns.

One can still work from chord tones with diminished scales. I take the notes of any dim7 shape and add notes a fret below - that gives a reasonably complete WH dim scale, or at least a good way of getting solo phrases. (When applying dim7 arps or scales to dom7s, I just start from the 3rd, 5th or 7th of the chord.)