CAGED

Hootsmon

I am currently learning this method as a PLATFORM to some serious theory......anyone else used the method and has anything to say on the caged system? My next step will be chord building and some heavy duty triad work

viz

I prefer traditional root, 1st inversion, 2nd inversion. Caged can be counter-productive to that.

not_the_dj

Your accent's slipping again. 

Either that or our beloved hootsmon's account has been hacked.

Hootsmon

I like to keep ma accent for the OT room and generally only change the to to tae

Hootsmon

viz said:

I prefer traditional root, 1st inversion, 2nd inversion. Caged can be counter-productive to that.

Inversions and triads up next bro. Already with only two weeks study I can see things a little clearer on the fretboard and some fingerings that were not apparent to me are appearing everywhere with caged. For many many years I was content to knock lumps out of my guitar without truly knowing what I was doing..... This has given me a new lease of life..........

sweepy

Don't forget 4 and 5 note a string scalar approach, which personally I prefer, tends to make your playing more "horn-like".

viz

I think root/1st/2nd is more easier than caged, plus a more useful, musical approach. Caged is more arbritary, from a musical perspective.

EricTheWeary

If I was going to give a generalisation based on the previous CAGED Discussions and having had a go at various CAGED materials it is a system that tends to be oriented toward jazzier approaches rather than rockier ones.
Probably of doubtful value if you are primarily a covers/ note for note kinda person.

bigjon

I use CAGED all the time to generate chord-voicings - see pretty much any of the chord of their week threads

close2u

@hootsmon

hootsmon said:

I am currently learning this method as a PLATFORM to some serious theory......anyone else used the method and has anything to say on the caged system? My next step will be chord building and some heavy duty triad work

Good on you. You should know by now I'm a big fan / advocate of JustinGuitar so ...
look here for theory:
http://justinguitar.com/en/PR-010-PracticalMusicTheory.php
look here for CAGED:
http://www.justinguitar.com/en/TB-031-CAGEDsystem1.php
look here for chord building:
http://www.justinguitar.com/en/PR-011-ChordConstructionGuide.php
look here for triads:
http://www.justinguitar.com/en/CH-008-Triads.php
http://www.justinguitar.com/en/IM-151-TriadGrips.php




@viz
re: CAGED
CAGED is not at all arbitrary ... it maps the instrument we play.
"The CAGED system was not 'invented'. It is a fact. It is how the guitar works and comes directly from the tuning of the instrument combined with western harmony." (Justin Sandercoe)

If anyone wants to know how / why CAGED is relevant & important and useful for playing with inversions? Watch this 9 minute video:

It's Tim Pierce showing inversions, arpeggiating, melodic chords & soloing.

That whole CAGED thing is real. Whether you have called it CAGED or not. Great moment when he says 'you taught me something'. Tim Pierce doesn't call it CAGED but it is CAGED he is using. There may be some great players who claim not to know or use CAGED" yet they can play chords all over the neck. It's because they simply see the arrangement of the chords by default. They never needed the 'name of the system' because they just automatically saw it. It's still CAGED. It's just how the guitar works.

@bigjon
Yes. Just so. You should enjoy that video above.

viz

Let me clarify what i think I'm trying to say. I mean the sequence C, A, G, E, D is *musically* arbritrary and doesn't move in the order of inversions, in fact it moves downwards. Unlike a guitar, it doesn't start with E but with C, and then, C's 1st inversion is a G-shape chord with the bottom string not plucked, not an A-shaped chord. Sure, obviously they're the open chord shapes and can be used in barres so can be used to produce inversions, but as a framework it doesn't help in showing how inversions work.

I think more helpful is the 3 main inversions driven from the E string (ECA), and the 3 main inversions from the A string (AGD):

Chords driven from the E-string, eg. E major:
Root: E-shape chord, eg 022100
1st: C-shape chord, eg 476454
2nd: A-shape chord, eg 779997

And chords driven from the A string, eg. A major:
Root: A-shape chord, eg x02220
1st: G-shape chord, eg x4222(5)
2nd: D-shape chord, eg x 8 8 10 11 11

You could extend it to chords driven from the D string, eg D major, but of course once you're away from the nut, this is the same as the E-shape so it's a bit irrelevant:
Root: D-shape chord, eg xx0232
1st: C-shape chord, eg xx4232
2nd: A-shape chord, eg xx7775

Anyway, in summary, I think ECA/AGD is more helpful than CAGED. It tells you that whenever you're playing a C-bar chord on all strings, you're playing a 1st inversion. Same when you're playing a G-shape chord without the bottom string. Anyway that's just me.

bigjon

My half of a facebook message exchange with viz - :-)

The key is I don't use it for theory at all - I use it for technique, to go FROM theory TO shapes on the guitar

C first chord bcos no Sharps / Flats. Then C- A- G- E- D- shapes how to play notes of C E & G as you move your hand up the fretboard

x32010, x35553

viz

My half:

Who is this please?

Stop emailing me or I'm calling the police.

mike_l

I half-way like CAGED, but rather than use it for theory, I use it as the next chord shape, for the same chord, up the neck.

IE, using a C major you have the open C, A-shape C, G-shape C ETC.

 

Edit, easier to say, than write/explain in writing.

RMJ

Reading this reminds me that I will never understand music theory. Ever.

I have tried to learn CAGED and found it difficult to apply in a musical context.  The only benefit I could see is playing chords in a different place so that the guitar is more prominant in a band context i.e. not clashing with a bass player or other guitarist. 

Nowadays I am content to play open E, A and D chords

frankus

I agree @RMJ

The thing is different chord shapes sound amazing on different instruments.

I play C and D barre chords a lot on my Bass VI ... they're some of the nicer chords anyway, but on a Bass VI they're please-drop-yer-panties nice.

I've pursued music theory for years and it's a cul-de-sac, to me. Nothing beats sitting down with a set of chords and simply slogging away till they're in your head as sounds and finger patterns ... what's why the E A and D chords spring forth for you - repetition.

You don't need to know that a some of the time a chord pattern has a long name that implies it's used for Jazz.. some of the simplest chord patterns have the most confusing names... what's more it stops people playing chords in "the wrong place" if they know the name... if you hear a space where that sound belongs... why remember some rule that says that shouldn't be the case?

If you know the sound and the pattern... when you want to hear it BAM!! it's there, it might sneak into a song you know and improve it or you might make something new from it.

The important thing is the sound and the patterns - the theory is generally used by farts on the internet to argue, if you play in a band and someone says what did you play there?!! if it sounded good they were playing something else ... which helped it sound good - so why do they need to know? Tell them and they might pinch it without giving credit.

In music, the most important thing is feeling good about yourself, otherwise you'll play badly, training helps some people feel better about themselves under more pressure is all. Music Theory isn't that kind of training.

matt1973

I'd second that. Music theory can even be learned without knowing what the subject matter sounds like. 

frankus

that's a much better way of putting it, have a wisdom

maw4neu

I wish that I had taken lessons or instruction from more accomplished players . . . 

My approach to playing is to listen first, work out the basic chords, then embellish if its within my capacity . . 

Sometimes though, I simply run into a brick wall . . .Thank the Lord for the TAB and YouTube via the Net. 

I know very little of Modes and Scales so my playing is limited sometimes and though Ive had my moments

Im at best a mediocre Rhythm Guitarist :-(  . . .  That said it doesn't dampen my enthusiasm ever and

I play every single day but, and this is important, Knowledge is Power . . .

My advice is to crack on with the CAGED Method then study Modes & Scales and whatever you can find next . . . 

It will all definitely make you a more rounded and accomplished player plus you will enjoy expressing

yourself freely with your instrument. Stick with it pal . . . You will 100% reap the rewards in time :-) 

thomasross20

I stick mainly to the major scale modes. E.g. if I play D dorian I know to play over the Dorian shape starting at fret 10 on the low/high E. If I want to start from the A string I know to play around the minor scale shape (as if playing A minor) starting from fret 5 on the A string. I can see the CAGED shapes over these scale shapes but don't use them that much. Should, though. Try playing changes by shifting scales all the time - I'll never be a musician in that sense - arps all the way for changes playing but not something I do. 

I used to play other modes & scales but not so much any more. Melodic minor? Nope, never play it. Harmonic minor rarely (have to brush up, only one note out, anyway).. tell you what, I learned the modes before the pentatonics! I still find the modes easier, strangely, but pentatonics have REAL power. 

harpo

viz said:

Let me clarify what i think I'm trying to say. I mean the sequence C, A, G, E, D is *musically* arbritrary and doesn't move in the order of inversions, in fact it moves downwards. Unlike a guitar, it doesn't start with E but with C, and then, C's 1st inversion is a G-shape chord with the bottom string not plucked, not an A-shaped chord. Sure, obviously they're the open chord shapes and can be used in barres so can be used to produce inversions, but as a framework it doesn't help in showing how inversions work.

I think more helpful is the 3 main inversions driven from the E string (ECA), and the 3 main inversions from the A string (AGD):

Chords driven from the E-string, eg. E major:
Root: E-shape chord, eg 022100
1st: C-shape chord, eg 476454
2nd: A-shape chord, eg 779997

And chords driven from the A string, eg. A major:
Root: A-shape chord, eg x02220
1st: G-shape chord, eg x4222(5)
2nd: D-shape chord, eg x 8 8 10 11 11

You could extend it to chords driven from the D string, eg D major, but of course once you're away from the nut, this is the same as the E-shape so it's a bit irrelevant:
Root: D-shape chord, eg xx0232
1st: C-shape chord, eg xx4232
2nd: A-shape chord, eg xx7775

Anyway, in summary, I think ECA/AGD is more helpful than CAGED. It tells you that whenever you're playing a C-bar chord on all strings, you're playing a 1st inversion. Same when you're playing a G-shape chord without the bottom string. Anyway that's just me.

Right.... I've read that 16 times and still I'm not Sure I get what your saying .......E string driven???. Wtf does that mean ? 'C bar chord on all the string = first inversion' ok fine but where's the root? Gaaaahhhhhh!