3-notes-per-string VS. The CAGED System

What's Hot
ChrisMusicChrisMusic Frets: 1114
3-notes-per-string VS. The CAGED System 

Mythbusting with Martin Miller & Levi Clay (Vlog #8)


Duration 41:07

https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fxwtmsuB3o



0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Comments

  • stratman3142stratman3142 Frets: 702
    edited January 4
    Yes an interesting discussion. I think Martin Miller sums it up perfectly from about 16:47, and I particularly like his statement: "CAGED is a thought process, not a playing prescription".

    I originally worked out my own way of visualising (and hearing) the guitar neck around a framework based on 5 pentatonic shapes, which I add to, combine and modify to create scales/arpeggios/chords. I only heard about the CAGED system much later and I chose align my thinking with a CAGED framework, as it was a common language point of reference.

    I'm sure users of a CAGED framework for visualising and hearing things have variations on the way they use it. But at least there's a common point of reference. So, if someone describes something in terms of CAGED, I can relate to (and understand) what they're saying, even if my way of thinking about it might be slightly different.

    It's not a competition.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • JMP220478JMP220478 Frets: 112
    @stratman3142 - thanks for posting - helped me add a focus to 2018 playing re improving fretboard navigation ..
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • stratman3142stratman3142 Frets: 702
    JMP220478 said:
    @stratman3142 - thanks for posting - helped me add a focus to 2018 playing re improving fretboard navigation ..
    Thanks for the thanks :), but I think @ChrisMusic should get the thanks for starting the thread.
    Do I have the record for fitting the maximum number of 'thanks' in one sentence?


    It's not a competition.
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Matt_McGMatt_McG Frets: 32
    For me, although I'd had a go with both CAGED and 3-nps in the past, the things that really unlocked it for me -- although I've still got a way to go -- was:

    i) doing more sight reading, so really having to get the notes on the neck down
    ii) exploring some older jazz styles -- gypsy jazz and swing, mostly -- and beginning to think in terms of relating everything to chords, either as arpeggios, or as decoration (chromatic approach notes, chord extensions), rather than thinking in terms of scales/modes.

    Doing ii) basically unlocked CAGED for me in a way that just doing exercises or attempting to learn in isolation didn't. I still don't really think of it was 5 distinct shapes, though. It's more 3 main shapes for me (C, A, E) and I think of the other two as basically extensions/connections between those.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • stratman3142stratman3142 Frets: 702
    edited January 22
    This clip is an interesting discussion on fretboard visualisation from two perspectives. My way of thinking is very similar to that of Martin Miller, but both players are 50 billion times better than me.


    It's not a competition.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Thanks for the share man

    more than happy to elaborate if anyone wants :)
    Support me on Youtube or Patreon
    https://www.patreon.com/leviclay    |    https://www.youtube.com/c/leviclay
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • mburekengemburekenge Frets: 477
    I watched this yesterday and it was excellent.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • TeetonetalTeetonetal Frets: 5542
    Not watched the video...

    I like both 3nps and caged. In fact you can easily shoehorn 3nps onto caged anyway  (2 positions on e and a shapes).

    I found caged to be very good for learning notes, octaves, chord shapes and playing through changes. 3 nps to be good for speed and legato techniques, playing modal.

    Both valid. Both worth learning.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • This clip is an interesting discussion on fretboard visualisation from two perspectives. My way of thinking is very similar to that of Martin Miller, but both players are 50 billion times better than me.


    Thats just an image for me, no video
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • @OnTheRopes ;

    I've sorted it now. Thanks for pointing it out. I must have made an edit to my post and not reinserted the link.
    It's not a competition.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • It occurs to me that it's worth putting a cross link to the thread below, which is covering much the same ground.

    http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/comment/1756122/#Comment_1756122


    It's not a competition.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • JAYJOJAYJO Frets: 687
    edited January 22
    Yes an interesting discussion. I think Martin Miller sums it up perfectly from about 16:47, and I particularly like his statement: "CAGED is a thought process, not a playing prescription".

    I originally worked out my own way of visualising (and hearing) the guitar neck around a framework based on 5 pentatonic shapes, which I add to, combine and modify to create scales/arpeggios/chords. I only heard about the CAGED system much later and I chose align my thinking with a CAGED framework, as it was a common language point of reference.

    I'm sure users of a CAGED framework for visualising and hearing things have variations on the way they use it. But at least there's a common point of reference. So, if someone describes something in terms of CAGED, I can relate to (and understand) what they're saying, even if my way of thinking about it might be slightly different.

    When viewing the caged system do you apply pentatonic shape 1 to G  in caged system etc and use the  caged system to see the chords ie  Shape 4 pentatonic would be the C shape etc ? Or do you view C shape caged as shape 1 Pentatonic.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • stratman3142stratman3142 Frets: 702
    edited January 22
    JAYJO said:
    Yes an interesting discussion. I think Martin Miller sums it up perfectly from about 16:47, and I particularly like his statement: "CAGED is a thought process, not a playing prescription".

    I originally worked out my own way of visualising (and hearing) the guitar neck around a framework based on 5 pentatonic shapes, which I add to, combine and modify to create scales/arpeggios/chords. I only heard about the CAGED system much later and I chose align my thinking with a CAGED framework, as it was a common language point of reference.

    I'm sure users of a CAGED framework for visualising and hearing things have variations on the way they use it. But at least there's a common point of reference. So, if someone describes something in terms of CAGED, I can relate to (and understand) what they're saying, even if my way of thinking about it might be slightly different.

    When viewing the caged system do you apply pentatonic shape 1 to G  in caged system etc and use the  caged system to see the chords ie  Shape 4 pentatonic would be the C shape etc ? Or do you view C shape caged as shape 1 Pentatonic.

    I have to confess the numbering system for pentatonic shapes confuses me a bit.

    For example, in my mind, a C major pentatonic shape is exactly the same shape/pattern as an A minor pentatonic shape, but with a different root note, so it seems illogical to give it a different shape number. I view (and name) major and minor pentatonics in terms of the chord shape (major or minor) that I can visualise within the pattern.

    It's not a competition.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • JAYJOJAYJO Frets: 687
    edited January 22
     The confusion for me is when i play a minor shape using shape 1. ie Am (What i viewed as a G shape now becomes an E shape.
    The pentatonic scales are in the same order but the caged shapes order  has changed.
    To confuse myself even more i see the g  and E shape are relative major and minor as are the C and A. lol.
    to recap i use shape 1 as a g shape caged when playing major to visualise the C major triad and I use shape 1 as an Em shape caged to visualise the minor triads. shape 1 being the first shape i learned.
    A good dvd i would recommend is Fretboard Navigation volume 2 . lick library jamie Humphries. He covers Caged and 3 note per string etc.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • stratman3142stratman3142 Frets: 702
    edited January 22
    Here's my fretboard visualisation system in a nutshell using the key of C as an example. I've put the major and minor pentatonics alongside each other.

    I'm not claiming it's 'official CAGED' (if such a thing exists) It's just my take on things. 
    Feel free to throw stones at it, and please point out if there are any typos. It would be good to hear other views so I can learn. I'm sure other players will see things very differently, even within a CAGED thought process.

    Picture 1 shows the basic framework shapes. I use the location of root notes within a given pattern to determine the name of the shape, which I've indicated with arrows.

    Picture 2 shows how I would see other intervals within the framework patterns, which I can then use to create other scales.
    For example, I think of the Aeolian mode as a minor pentatonic with an added 2 and b6. And, for example, if I wanted a Harmonic minor scale, I just play an Aeolian mode with a major 7th instead of a b7.


    Picture 1 - Pentatonic Framework Shapes



    Picture 2 - All The Intervals

    It's not a competition.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • JAYJOJAYJO Frets: 687
    I see how that works viewing it from C major and Cminor. The CAGED system remains the same.
    I tend to view it from Major and relative minor(no idea why). Maybe that is making it more confusing for myself. Everything i do i see as being built from the pentatonic framework etc as you described. I add the 2nds and 6ths etc to the scale to make the modes. I  make 3 note triads 135 starting from the root and play the diatonic chord arpeggios. This gives me the full scale shape which i can recognise and helps to play in the one position using that pattern.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • stratman3142stratman3142 Frets: 702
    edited January 22
    JAYJO said:
    I see how that works viewing it from C major and Cminor. The CAGED system remains the same.
    I tend to view it from Major and relative minor(no idea why).

    There's more than one way of looking at these things. When I'm playing the C minor pentatonics I could equally think of it as playing Eb major pentatonics against C (where C minor  is the relative minor of Eb), but I'd be using C as the root note.

    I'm sure that when people say they're using CAGED they might be using a similar thought process but approaching things with slightly different perspectives. I see that as a positive thing as it's open to how you choose to use it creatively.

    It's not a competition.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.