Guitar Modes - Separate fingerings or start on a particular root?

[fumblefingers]

If you keep practising, it will get easier over time, don't worry about other people's ability, just practice, practice, practice. You will get there.

Nuff

not sure what you're talking about.

i'm a Berklee trained, and classically trained former teacher. And lifelong student. articulate and insightful pedagogy is an interest of mine.

jazz guitar "knowledge" and advice is generally a mess, and can use all the help it can get.

the FACT is, the aforementioned seven shapes for seven modes gambit is only the tip of the iceberg. most relevantly, pointing out its inadequacies/incompleteness is central to the point of the OP's original question.

in order to see what I mean, you may want to (1) go through Leavitt's 3 volumes, (2) take Berklee Online Scales 101 to learn the 3-octave mirror fingerings, and (3) reference Berklee Guitar's homepage to see how they lay out 8 semesters of advancing capability on the fretboard.

and after all of that realize that Berklee's way is not the only way - but - is a good point of reference from which to compare, contrast, and adjudge other approaches.

then you will be able to very quickly see the limitations of the seven shapes for seven modes "solution".

["Umm, fish?"]

We hear every individual note in relation to the background: the current chord, and the established key. So those are the relationships you need to understand. Modes won't help you with that.

This is absolutely correct and most important, IMO, but in addition to the current chord and key, you also need to hear the relationships of the individual note to the notes you (and your bandmates) have just played and also to the notes you are about to play. Context helps establish consonance and dissonance and your job is to control the context and relate it to what else is going on.

[Rich Cochrane]

in order to see what I mean, you may want to (1) go through Leavitt's 3 volumes, (2) take Berklee Online Scales 101 to learn the 3-octave mirror fingerings, and (3) reference Berklee Guitar's homepage to see how they lay out 8 semesters of advancing capability on the fretboard.

I agree that we should be as fluent as possible with our melodic material and I can see the benefits of having a student play through their scales in all kinds of different ways to cement their understanding of how fingerings connect along the fingerboard. On its face, though, this sounds like overkill to me.

If you know the CAGED system thoroughly things like mirror fingerings should just "show up" on the fingerboard without the need to memorize them from a book. I wouldn't say "X doesn't know the major scale" just because they hadn't happened across (say) mirror fingerings of it yet. To me they're a way of playing the fingerings you already know that you may or may not find useful. Same goes for 3-note-per-string patterns, which I use all the time but didn't learn individually.

If a student who says she wants to learn the major scale it just seems a bit unhelpful to present her with 100 seemingly different fingerings to learn: first because it's onerous and offputting and second because they're massively redundant. Maybe that works in an academic setting but for most learners I wonder how appropriate it would be.

I don't know this part of the Berkeley method well by any means so I'd be interested to get your perspective on the benefits of all those additional fingerings -- I'm here to learn from other approaches

[S_R_S5]

Learn a new fingering for every mode. This is useful for 2 reasons. Say you are playing over a G major chord. You can have access to the whole fret board instead of just one position. The second reason is it makes it easier to use the mode and to alter it. For example You are playing an E minor chord. You already know E natural minor. (Plus you can play in G major, A dorian etc). Now all you have to do is take a mode, lets say mixolydian (the 5th mode) and raise the fourth 1 degree now you are playing lydian dominant. So yes learn 7 positions for each mode of the major scale. Once you have the modes of the major scale, learn the modes of the melodic and harmonic minor as well. Another piece of advice would be to learn which chords go with which note in the scale. For example: if we are in G major, the second or "A" would be minor. the F# would be minor7(b5).

[bako]

1. Knowing where the notes are by actual location and not solely as a part of a scale fingering shape.
2. Knowing the various components of fingering organization: position, extension, contraction, shifting, slide shifts, ect.

These 2 elements will allow you to create fingerings on the fly as needed.

[Nuff Said]

From my post on Leavitt Fingerings on 10-15-2011.
https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/getti...-diagrams.html



I learn these patterns 20+ years ago and I find them very good for fretboard navigation, I'm against restricting yourself to one method, the aim is to eventually know all notes everywhere and anywhere.
Nuff

[fumblefingers]

I agree that we should be as fluent as possible with our melodic material and I can see the benefits of having a student play through their scales in all kinds of different ways to cement their understanding of how fingerings connect along the fingerboard. On its face, though, this sounds like overkill to me.

If you know the CAGED system thoroughly things like mirror fingerings should just "show up" on the fingerboard without the need to memorize them from a book. I wouldn't say "X doesn't know the major scale" just because they hadn't happened across (say) mirror fingerings of it yet. To me they're a way of playing the fingerings you already know that you may or may not find useful. Same goes for 3-note-per-string patterns, which I use all the time but didn't learn individually.

If a student who says she wants to learn the major scale it just seems a bit unhelpful to present her with 100 seemingly different fingerings to learn: first because it's onerous and offputting and second because they're massively redundant. Maybe that works in an academic setting but for most learners I wonder how appropriate it would be.

I don't know this part of the Berkeley method well by any means so I'd be interested to get your perspective on the benefits of all those additional fingerings -- I'm here to learn from other approaches

OK, a few things.

1. You're right, my perspective here is aimed at the guitarist seeking to master the instrument - not a beginner or someone who just "wants to play a little jazz here and there". Further, everything is learned gradually - like most any other topic. Don't overwhelm students or they'll quit!

2. I agree - go with CAGED. Then later maybe throw in a couple of fingering options from Leavitt or 3NPS.

3. After learning the Leavitt scale fingerings, I have reduced back to CAGED (or just "5 fingerings") plus a few Leavitt exceptions here and there. That leaves you with the number of fingerings that I mentioned in one of the above posts - much more manageable than what Leavitt shows you. So, I am not one of these "100 fingerings for a C scale" proponents (but you can follow Frank Vignola's advice if you want to, he knows the topic far better than I).

4. Here's a dirty little secret. On pages 60, 70, 80 etc of Leavitt's volume 1, he uses 5 basic fingerings - BUT - he also has you play one octave modes within them - without telling you that you are learning "extra fingerings", when in fact you are. You may not realize that until you stand back and look at it. In fact, he introduces chromatics for each mode in a fashion similar to the bebop scale, but he doesn't make a fuss about telling you that either. That's a sneaky way to teach you 8 note scales with forward motion. Nice.

5. Learning range on the instrument (every instrument) is important, no? But when starting out to do that, how do you practice it in a systematic fashion, without inventing all of that yourself? The 3-octave mirror fingerings are one way. Why figure them out for yourself when they've already been mapped out for you? Later, you can/should cut your own path. Segovia scales ar another way but the melodic minor is different descending, and the scales are only played from the tonic - no modes. The point is - learning to play those scales smoothly - and at speed - so well that a listener cannot tell that you have changed positions between notes - is a very worthwhile and necessary goal. That one factor takes a lot of practice and would be further complicated by having to figure out all the fingerboard possibilities on your own. Later, after achieving a lot of fluency, you can go crazy. Leavitt covers some possibities to explore, on a couple of pages in Book 3.

Cheers.

[Nuff Said]

Cheers.

Modes - Do you recommend separate fingerings or just start on a particular root?

Getting back to the topic Mr FumbleFingers, what Melodic Minor Mode fingerings would you suggest for our dear readers?
Nuff

[whatswisdom]

Mr FumbleFingers, what Melodic Minor Mode fingerings would you suggest for our dear readers?Nuff

Nuff: You expect us to take advice from someone called "fumblefingers?!"

[Reg]

All standard fingering work with MM or HM... If your still very conscious of fingerings while your playing... your guitar is still playing you. Which is extremely normal with guitarist and with most teaching methods... that's how your going to play... It won't change unless you change it.

If your not sure of how you finger things... Read through some up tempo music.... If you don't read that well... which is also extremely normal for guitarist... play something not memorized and don't watch your the neck..... You won't worry about the fingerings... If you find yourself having to check your neck out....you don't have any fingering that together. But you should be able to determine what fingering your naturally using. Maybe you'll need someone else to watch you play.

My point again... unless your going to try and be a pro... your going to be working on hearing what you play for ever. Your going to be working on fingerings for ever. There's always something new that will require some new fingering... to create the least amount of movement or most efficient method of playing... or create a certain sound or style.

At some point your going to simply play.... and if you don't use the correct fingering(s)... it's not going to really matter. Your won't have to memorize fingering for heads, solos whatever your playing. The way you play, fingerings etc... will not need to go through the classical style of memorize and perform... you'll be able to play in a jazz style.

You can play the same head or solo idea with any number of fingerings... Really... the better you become the more choices you'll have...

If your still in early stages of playing... jazz is almost impossible. But you can use jazz tunes etc... to help get your technique together.

That also goes with trying to play in a jazz style... if your thinking that your going to play in a modal style by using fingerings... your missing the concept of what modal style is... also extremely common.

AS far as what fingerings for MM...or any scale. I generally always use 2nd finger as base for all fingering. I use stretches with both 1st and 4th fingers.
If I'm conscious and make a choice... I use 1st finger stretches as first choice... 4th finger stretches are secondary choice... but stay in general shape of fingering created from 2nd finger being the base or starting point.
If you think of any scale or note collection and begin on 6th string... I start with 2nd finger and keep 2nd and 3rd fingers in position all the time, stretch with 1st and 4th fingers.

Even when I play from or begin from other strings... I generally still use these fingerings... When I play a single note... a complete fingering is always implied.
I did this before I graduated from Berklee back in the 70's. I could play before I went to Berklee... I went there to learn more jazz theory.

Fingerings or techniques are mechanical skills... modal style is a concept ... a different system for organizing tonality.

Don't get hung up on Euro. Classical Tradition and terminology... it's obviously part of understanding music ... and the standard starting point... but your going to need a lot of "trial and error" if that's your only theoretical and harmonic source of understanding.
Reg

[Rich Cochrane]

In fact, he introduces chromatics for each mode in a fashion similar to the bebop scale, but he doesn't make a fuss about telling you that either. That's a sneaky way to teach you 8 note scales with forward motion. Nice.

I love doing this with scales. I actually first learned five of the major scale modes this way, by adding 2 notes to the pentatonics in different ways... I guess someone suggested it to me and I just went ahead and wrote out all the diagrams, assuming this was what everyone did.

Anyway, it sounds as if we're in broad agreement. I do like finding new ways to play material I already "know" -- I'm working on a bit of hybrid picking at the moment it's opening up new (to me) ideas with big leaps that I'd never have dared to try before. The same thing happens with tapping, if you're into that: there you really need to be able to see those fingerings in a different way.

And you're right that having stuff worked out means you don't have to wait until you're lucky enough to stumble across it. It's probably something I ought to look at more than I have.

[whatswisdom]

Maybe you'll need someone else to watch you play.

Ever try playing in front of a mirror and watching your fretting hand? Very informative, from my experience. Unique perspective.

I generally always use 2nd finger as base for all fingering. I use stretches with both 1st and 4th fingers.

Bingo! That's what I've been doing for quite some time. I think Goodrick endorses this in Advancing Guitarist too.

If I'm conscious and make a choice... I use 1st finger stretches as first choice... 4th finger stretches are secondary choice... but stay in general shape of fingering created from 2nd finger being the base or starting point.

Right on!!!

If you think of any scale or note collection and begin on 6th string... I start with 2nd finger and keep 2nd and 3rd fingers in position all the time, stretch with 1st and 4th fingers.
Even when I play from or begin from other strings... I generally still use these fingerings...When I play a single note... a complete fingering is always implied.

Aha! That makes it even clearer, Reg.

This might be worth considering. First thing I do every time I begin a practice session is play every note on the guitar, sometimes starting on the lowest note, Sixth string open E, and sometimes starting on the highest, First string high C. Other times a random note. So I'm playing nothing but a chromatic scale, up+down continuously. I try for smooth clear articulation at various tempi. I do this for several minutes without any governing tonality. (The fingerings I got from Aaron Shearer's book a long time ago. "Entire range of the guitar." Book III.) I always play it fingerstyle using different right hand patterns, p m; i m; m a; etc...use pick of course, if that's your style. This is a great warm-up exercise, physically. And mentally it is very beneficial if you play it while being aware of each note name--fretboard will become very familiar; you should also play it over different rhythms, odd-meters, etc. Fingerings eventually become almost irrelevant. Reg, your posts are full of insight, as always.

[fumblefingers]

What is the conventional wisdom on playing modes with respect to fingering? I have been just using my originally Major Scale fingerings and starting on the root of whichever mode I am playing. I believe I have read recommendations otherwise saying it is more efficient to have a fingering for ever mode so you can have your strong fingers better aligned.

By the way, I use the Musician's Institute standard fingerings for Major and Minor scale. I have noticed Jody Fisher, Jimmy Bruno and others have their own system. I may tweak mine one day but for now, it works for me.

By now we have gone far afield from your original question. There have been a lot of interesting and informative responses. As for me, I may have confused a few folks. I will try to answer the original question as directly as possible.

Your approach is fine. Furthermore, in a certain sense it is also the same as the alternative that you mentioned. If the last point seems contradictory, I'll explain.

Firstly, the typical "scale fingerings" like CAGED, 3NPS, or Leavitt's etc. are not scale fingerings as much as they are scale "fretboard maps" or scale “fingering patterns”. They contain all the notes in a scale from the lowest note on the 6th string to practically reach for, to the highest note on the 1rst string to practically reach for - without shifting up or down a couple of positions. To go beyond those two end points you need to move up or down to another position on the fretboard and use another fretboard map/pattern. And to cover 12 frets you need to utilize more than a few such patterns. How many? The CAGED "method" suggests that you need 5 such patterns to cover 12 frets; William Leavitt thought that you needed 12 for major scales, others suggest different numbers.

So why aren’t they “scale fingerings”? (at least in strict terms). Here’s why.

Take the typical CAGED major scale fingering pattern for the G major scale,starting in the 2nd position. The lowest note in that pattern is F#, or the leading tone. The highest note is A, or the super tonic. If you play from F# up to A what have you played? Answer: Not a scale or mode. Or rather, you have played an extended scale, or extended Locrian mode to be precise. But if you would stop on the F# on the first string you will have played a two-octave Locrian mode.

So it sounds like you practice modes a little bit, eh? So how do you practice them? Extended to the 9th or 10th? Or do you play them from the first note in the mode to the repeat of that note at the octave or double octave? (BTW, I believe that they call the first note of a mode the “final” as opposed to the “root”. Chords have roots. But whatever). Further,how do you think keyboard, brass, woodwind and other string players practice scales and modes? Always extended? Or to an octave? (at least most of the time).

So let’s take another look at that G major scale fingering pattern in the 2nd position. You can think of it as “one” fingering if you wish, but when talking about modes in the strict sense, it’s many more than that. More specifically, there are two one-octave fingerings each for the Locrian, Ionian and Dorian modes all within that particular fingering pattern. The other 4 modes have a single one-octave fingering within that pattern. So, that’s 10 one-octave mode fingerings in a single CAGED pattern - and of course there are five CAGED patterns. That means that a CAGED practitioner “knows” about 50 one-octave mode fingerings – they just may not realize it in that sense. Of course, if they don’t practice modes to the octave(s) it’s easy to see why they don’t count it that way.

So here’s a question for you. If CAGED has five patterns and about 50 one-octave mode fingerings within them, how many such fingerings does a seven-pattern system contain? A nine- pattern system? A twelve-pattern system? So how many “different” mode fingerings do you know anyway? It depends on your chosen fingering system. (CAGED vs. Leavitt orother, etc.). But - can you readily play them all without extensions? Do you know all of your one-octave forms, two-octave forms, and yes, even 3-octave forms? I contend that you should – and it’s not that difficult.

In closing;

1. All of the above is “high beginner” to “intermediate”stuff. It’s certainly not a description of the be-all, end-all level of technical facility.


2. It goes without saying that scales and modes are not music, and rote scale and arpeggio technical studies alone won’t produce hip jazz lines, and scales are like bench presses and are not the real football game, etc. etc. (you always have to include this disclaimer or the usual rants are only minutes away J).


3. Finally, some guitarists don’t believe in “practicing modes”as such. They presumably don’t give a damn about any of the distinctions made above. That’s fine by me! It’s no hair off my ass. Relative to other instrumentalists guitarists always seem to be looking for some shortcut, magic formula, or easy way out. That’s just the way it is.


Cheers.

[Reg]

Hey fumblefingers...
Nice post... opinions, etc... who cares.
What would be pro or expert levels ...the end of the road, eureka... that state of being free from fingering constraints... having our consciousness liberated... yes Nirvana.... sorry got carried away.

Anyway in basic practical terms... what neck layout, grid or base would be or should be used for reference... Reg

[fumblefingers]

Hey fumblefingers...
Nice post... opinions, etc... who cares.
What would be pro or expert levels ...the end of the road, eureka... that state of being free from fingering constraints... having our consciousness liberated... yes Nirvana.... sorry got carried away.

Anyway in basic practical terms... what neck layout, grid or base would be or should be used for reference... Reg

well i think that your posts above have addressed that end of the spectrum. the original question that i was trying to answer to the OP was very fundamental/developmental.

but to answer your question - and i will call it master level as opposed to pro...

1. when technical fluency is no longer a significant challenge. (because you (1) have developed it, and (2) maintain it by doing whatever you need to do to keep it sharp, and that varies by individual)

when technical fluency is no longer a significant challenge you should be able to read, sight read, improvise and artistically interpret much more easily. of course those are seperate and distinct skills that must be developed as well. each of those also requires mastery and there is no guarantee that all or any of them will ever be mastered, much the same as with technique. (life's a bitch, ain't it). these skills are where practical professionalism and artistry come in. its not all about technique. masterful technique is assumed.

scale fingering systems? well for classical players Aaron Shearer's and Segovia's methods cover a lot of ground. and the beauty is, you get to work out your fingerings piece by piece anyway.

but for improvisers its a different ball game. (let's set aside reading skill for the moment). its my opinion that 5 fingerings are not quite enough. Leavitt fingerings are a nice supplement. in other words, stretch fingerings are necessary, I just don't beleive that you need to use them to the extent that Leavitt teaches, which is almost exclusive. you can shift now and then! in fact, you need to master vertical and horizontal playing. position playing is an easier skill to master for students. shifting freely all over the place (and not screwing up) is a much more advanced skill. and like any other skill, it needs to be broken down and developed in a progressive fashion.

[jster]

This discussion reminds me of the famous story about the filming of Marathon Man. Dustin Hoffman, the consumate method actor, stayed awake for 72 hours to get ready for a scene where he is exhausted. Laurence Olivier shows up on the set, and when Hoffman tells him what he has done to prepare, Olivier says, "You really should try acting dear boy."

What's my point? You really should try tuning in fourths. Major modes, three notes per string. Melodic minor modes, three notes per string. So 7 positions, but they really reduce to one form. So basically, there is one form for all major modes. One form for all melodic minor modes. They are all positions that require that you stretch either the 1st or the 4th finger. Since there are three notes per string, if you are playing some mode, say Lydian b7, then there are three choices where to start: first finger, second/third finger, or last finger. In order to forget a fingering for a mode, you would have to forget all of them. One form for all pentatonic scales. Here two notes per string, so two choices where to start.

AND JUST TO RUB IT IN: You can't even imagine the shortcuts. If you know your pentatonic form, I could put a cheat sheet for all the melodic minor modes on the back of a post card and mail it to you.

[Reg]

Hey Jster... 4th are cool. I did try years ago... to difficult to cover guitar styles, voicings etc... but still better than cello. Like the analogy... eventually we do just play with what we have.

And Fumblefingers... yea eventually the entire fretboard is one fingering... lots of choices.
Yes... masterful technique is assumed... in jazz masterful ears are also assumed... The ears can be masterful from memorization... trial and error or comprehension of musical concepts... principles as compared to applications of... usually better to have both.

I don't remember Bills connections, between the fingerings... but to me that was one of the keys to fretboard becoming one large fingering. And to me, the reading skills are the perfect gauge for how well what ever system one chooses to use ... works. But of course most guitarist don't read that well, let alone sight read. Just a reminder... reading is just as important as fingerings...
Again position playing has worked well for me. Position being defined by 1st finger at rest, no stretch. And the system I explained above in previous post. I Read well... get calls for very technical gigs with no rehearsal... And have fun, no technique problems. Who knows with the artistry thing... I don't worry about it... takes care of it's self.

I watch many videos where many guitarist have somewhat non functional fingering etc... usually resulting in hitting walls with technique levels... you can only practice something so much...

Would be interesting to see videos of different methods of fingering patterns and the connections... I'll gladly post simple example of what I use for start... We don't need to use scales... we could use arpeggios or whatever... I use the same fingering to comp... I usually just voice below lead lines.

It is almost a mechanical method for developing modal style playing. In that respect maybe that is what AlsoRan was searching for...
Reg

[jster]

Hey Reg, I believe you on different styles. But I'm not seeing any voicing problem. I started tuning in 4ths about the time I joined this forum, maybe 18 months ago. I kept waiting for the hammer to drop in the chord department, but it hasn't. If you know of any typical voicings that are problematic, I'd love to know which ones they are.

[Jazzpunk]

I find this topic of interest but in the grand scheme of things, how many jazz guitar fans really care about mastering a lot of scale fingerings?

Over half the forum prefers old school jazz and Wes and Pass lead the players polls. How many fingerings did Wes and Pass even have?

Ironically the players who have the fretboard/scale mastery being discussed in this thread are probably the least popular amongst the jazz fans on this forum.

[Reg]

Hey Jster... as I remember... top four string voicings that use 2nds...I'm sure they can be covered... I would love to see video of you playing some demos of standards...

Jazzpunk... yea I agree... but how many jazz guitar fans are even on this forum. And I would believe both Wes and Pass had Fingering memorized... I thing we're lucky to be able to even discuss these topics... I could play long before there were forum... and very few teachers understood jazz or could play...
Did you ever see Pass when he was young... the guy had fretboard mastery... one of the best.
I'm not sure of who you mean by fans... and least popular is a measurement for what...
I'm always open to discuss any aspect of playing and usually add videos... to help, not build fan base... Reg

[jster]

Hey Jster... as I remember... top four string voicings that use 2nds...I'm sure they can be covered... I would love to see video of you playing some demos of standards...

Hmm, not sure which ones you have in mind. I was asking which ones can't be done with P4. It would have to be some voicing that you can't do on your four bottom strings that you can do on the top four. (You can probably figure one out in a minute if you approach it that way.) 7b9,9,#9 are all super easy. Thing is, because my strings are sharper, I actually cover a greater range. I can cover one half step more than standard tuning. I am going to put a Monk audio up this week. I hadn't thought about video. I don't think we have a web cam right now since the other laptop went poop. I am just getting back into chord solo stuff for the first time in 25 years and with the new tuning. But I just haven't found that many chords that I can't do. The biggest ones are the root position maj7 on middle four strings, and the min7 1b371 on the middle four strings. But yeah, I will do a P4 demo after I get a few chord solos under my belt. I didn't do Misty as a chord solo, just chords and solo. The coolest things are blistering legato, ultra simple arpeggios, and ultra simple fretboard.

[Jazzpunk]

Hey Jster... as I remember... top four string voicings that use 2nds...I'm sure they can be covered... I would love to see video of you playing some demos of standards...

Jazzpunk... yea I agree... but how many jazz guitar fans are even on this forum. And I would believe both Wes and Pass had Fingering memorized... I thing we're lucky to be able to even discuss these topics... I could play long before there were forum... and very few teachers understood jazz or could play...
Did you ever see Pass when he was young... the guy had fretboard mastery... one of the best.
I'm not sure of who you mean by fans... and least popular is a measurement for what...
I'm always open to discuss any aspect of playing and usually add videos... to help, not build fan base... Reg

I was basing that observation off of the two opinion polls here ('favorite player' and 'modern jazz vs. old school') and assuming that most of us here are fans of jazz guitar.

The 'least popular' is simply a measure for subjective opinion. We can however conclude from the polls that half the people here prefer old school jazz and the overwhelming majority think that Wes and Pass were/are the 'best'.

In light of this, I was wondering aloud how important knowing 100 different fingerings for one scale is for the average player especially if old school is their bag.

[fumblefingers]

Hey Jster... as I remember... top four string voicings that use 2nds...I'm sure they can be covered... I would love to see video of you playing some demos of standards...

Jazzpunk... yea I agree... but how many jazz guitar fans are even on this forum. And I would believe both Wes and Pass had Fingering memorized... I thing we're lucky to be able to even discuss these topics... I could play long before there were forum... and very few teachers understood jazz or could play...
Did you ever see Pass when he was young... the guy had fretboard mastery... one of the best.
I'm not sure of who you mean by fans... and least popular is a measurement for what...
I'm always open to discuss any aspect of playing and usually add videos... to help, not build fan base... Reg

yep, Pass had all the scales down at 14.

sorry jazzpunk, but that was kind of a dumb post.

[fumblefingers]

Hey Jster... 4th are cool. I did try years ago... to difficult to cover guitar styles, voicings etc... but still better than cello. Like the analogy... eventually we do just play with what we have.

And Fumblefingers... yea eventually the entire fretboard is one fingering... lots of choices.
Yes... masterful technique is assumed... in jazz masterful ears are also assumed... The ears can be masterful from memorization... trial and error or comprehension of musical concepts... principles as compared to applications of... usually better to have both.

I don't remember Bills connections, between the fingerings... but to me that was one of the keys to fretboard becoming one large fingering. And to me, the reading skills are the perfect gauge for how well what ever system one chooses to use ... works. But of course most guitarist don't read that well, let alone sight read. Just a reminder... reading is just as important as fingerings...
Again position playing has worked well for me. Position being defined by 1st finger at rest, no stretch. And the system I explained above in previous post. I Read well... get calls for very technical gigs with no rehearsal... And have fun, no technique problems. Who knows with the artistry thing... I don't worry about it... takes care of it's self.

I watch many videos where many guitarist have somewhat non functional fingering etc... usually resulting in hitting walls with technique levels... you can only practice something so much...

Would be interesting to see videos of different methods of fingering patterns and the connections... I'll gladly post simple example of what I use for start... We don't need to use scales... we could use arpeggios or whatever... I use the same fingering to comp... I usually just voice below lead lines.

It is almost a mechanical method for developing modal style playing. In that respect maybe that is what AlsoRan was searching for...
Reg

agreed. most guitar playing is position playing. in fact, most shifts are simply moves from one position where you play as much as is practical to another position where you do the same. a hell of a lot of music can be played in one position.

here are 2 interesting videos of hand movement. cheers.

[Jazzpunk]

yep, Pass had all the scales down at 14.

sorry jazzpunk, but that was kind of a dumb post.

It's actually hard to tell from Pass's instructional videos how much intellectualizing he did which is why I was asking. He always seems to kind of downplay his knowledge which may be deceptive to those of us not at his level.

I don't think it is 'dumb' to discuss application of technique in actually making music. I think it's a legitimate question for aspiring jazzers to inquire about scale mastery as it pertains to artistic goals and personal style.

So you are stating that Wes and Pass studied, mastered and employed all of the scale fingerings that you are advocating? I really don't know which is why I am asking.

Like I said, I personally enjoy this type of study, I was just wondering if it is applicable for everyone.