Members CBLjazz Posted April 28, 2007 Members Posted April 28, 2007 I don't think the best way to practice arps is in two octaves. I think inversions help you ultimately understand music better and thus become a better improvisor- which to me is simply being able to play what you hear in your head.I have recently been gravitating toward the CAGED system of fretboard organization which is more open than the dogmatic "string group" thing I learned in school. My recent dilemma has been, "How do I mix the two?" CAGED & inversions. Are they compatible or not? Well I now see that they are very compatible. Which only extends my belief in the flexibility of viewing the fretboard in a CAGED way. Here's my discovery: These are all arps for a DMajor7 chord= DF#AC# C form#11st inversion= F#AC#DE----------------------------------B---------------------------------G---------------------------------D---------------------------------A---------4--5--4------------------E---2--5-----------5--2------------ 2nd Inversion= AC#DF##2E----------------------------------B---------------------------------G---------------------------------D---------------4-----------------A-------4--5------5-4--------------E----5------------------5----------- 3rd Inversion= C#DF#A#3E----------------------------------B---------------------------------G------------2--------------------D---------4----4------------------A---4--5---------5-4---------------E---------------------------------- Root position= DF#AC##4E----------------------------------B--------------2------------------G----------2-----2----------------D-------4-----------4-------------A----5-----------------5-----------E---------------------------------- 1st Inversion= F#AC#D#5E----------------------------------B-----------2--3-2-----------------G-------2-----------2-------------D----4-----------------4----------A----------------------------------E---------------------------------- 2nd Inversion#6E--------------2--------------------B-------2--3-----3-2--------------G----2-----------------2----------D---------------------------------A----------------------------------E---------------------------------- __________________ A form2nd Inversion= AC#DF##1E----------------------------------B---------------------------------G---------------------------------D-----------4---------------------A------4-5---5-4-------------------E----5-------------5--------------- 3rd Inversion= C#DF#A#2E----------------------------------B---------------------------------G---------------------------------D---------4--7--4-----------------A---4--5-----------5--4-------------E---------------------------------- Root position= DF#AC##3E----------------------------------B---------------------------------G-----------6---------------------D-----4--7----7--4----------------A--5-----------------5-------------E---------------------------------- 1st Inversion= F#AC#D#4E----------------------------------B---------------------------------G----------6-7--6----------------D---4--7----------7--4------------A----------------------------------E---------------------------------- 2nd Inversion= AC#DF# #5E----------------------------------B---------------------------------G------6-7-6----------------------D---7---------7-------------------A----------------------------------E---------------------------------- 3rd Inversion= C#DF#A #6E-------------5--------------------B----------7----7-----------------G---6--7----------7-6-----------D---------------------------------A----------------------------------E---------------------------------- ___________________ G form3rd Inversion= C#DF#A #1E----------------------------------B---------------------------------G---------------------------------D------------7--------------------A----------9----9------------------E---9-10----------10-9--------------- Root Position= DF#AC# #2E----------------------------------B---------------------------------G-----------6---------------------D---------7---7-------------------A-------9-------9------------------E---10-------------10-------------- 1st Inversion= F#AC#D #3E----------------------------------B---------------------------------G--------6-7-6--------------------D-----7---------7-----------------A---9-------------9----------------E---------------------------------- 2nd Inversion= AC#DF# #4E----------------------------------B------------7--------------------G-------6-7---7-6-----------------D----7-------------7--------------A----------------------------------E---------------------------------- 3rd Inversion= C#DF#A #5E----------------------------------B--------7-10-7--------------------G---6-7----------7-6--------------D---------------------------------A----------------------------------E---------------------------------- Root position= DF#AC# #6E----------------9-----------------B-------7--10-----10-7--------------G----7--------------------7-------D---------------------------------A----------------------------------E---------------------------------- _________________ E form3rd Inversion= C#DF#A #1E----------------------------------B---------------------------------G---------------------------------D---------------------------------A-----------9-12-9---------------E---9--10-----------10-9--------- Root position= DF#AC# #2E----------------------------------B---------------------------------G---------------------------------D--------------11------------------A-------9--12----12-9----------------E---10-------------------10---------- 1st Inversion= F#AC#D #3E----------------------------------B---------------------------------G---------------------------------D-----------11-12-11------------A---9--12--------------12--9-----E---------------------------------- 2nd Inversion= AC#DF# #4E----------------------------------B---------------------------------G----------------11----------------D-------11--12-----12-11---------A---12----------------------12-----E---------------------------------- 3rd Inversion= C#DF#A #5E----------------------------------B---------------10-----------------G-----------11-----11---------------D---11-12-------------12-11------A----------------------------------E---------------------------------- Root position= DF#AC# #6E---------------9------------------B-----------10---10-----------------G-------11-----------11-------------D---12-------------------12---------A----------------------------------E---------------------------------- __________________ D form1st Inversion= F#AC#D #1E----------------------------------B---------------------------------G---------------------------------D-----------11-12-11-------------A------12--------------12---------E--14------------------------14---- 2nd Inversion= AC#DF# #2E----------------------------------B---------------------------------G---------------11----------------D------11--12-----12-11-------A--12-----------------------12--E---------------------------------- 3rd Inversion-= C#DF#A #3E----------------------------------B---------------------------------G-----------11-12--11-----------D---11-12---------------12-11---A----------------------------------E---------------------------------- Root position= DF#AC# #4E----------------------------------B----------------14----------------G------11--14-------14--11-------D--12-------------------------12----A----------------------------------E---------------------------------- 1st Inversion= F#AC#D #5E----------------------------------B-------------14-15-14-----------G---11--14---------------14-11--D---------------------------------A----------------------------------E---------------------------------- 2nd Inversion= AC#DF# #6E---------------14------------------B-------14-15------15-14--------G--14------------------------14---D---------------------------------A----------------------------------E---------------------------------- ________________ This is not the mainstream view of playing arps on the guitar. As far as I know there is nothing currently published that takes this approach to arps. I think that's because its ultimately 15-20 times more difficult and it cannot be learned based on patterns. Fingering patterns exist but they can't be the basis for you understanding this approach. You have to know what you are playing to use this approach. Pattern: there are 6 inversions in each position= 30 inversions.It's easier to learn 3 or 4 sweep patterns and mindlessly move them around the fretboard. This is musical not mechanical.
Members blumonk Posted April 28, 2007 Members Posted April 28, 2007 How about you post a clip utilizing these 2 friends in a musical context?
Members CBLjazz Posted April 28, 2007 Author Members Posted April 28, 2007 How about you post a clip utilizing these 2 friends in a musical context? Just practice stuff. Colors. Serious players like visual artists spend time mastering mechanics so during performance they don't think about it.Coltrane had an intense practice routine that is well documented and likewise famous painters spent many hours mastering brush strokes and mixing colors.Feel free tto check out my music clips in my signature. That's the only application I have. My playing hasn't necessarily changed but my thinking has.
Members bardsley Posted April 28, 2007 Members Posted April 28, 2007 Nice post. I tend to think in terms of 7 shapes rather than 5, but the thinking's all the same. Inversions definitely help you move past the root note tedium.
Members CBLjazz Posted April 28, 2007 Author Members Posted April 28, 2007 Nice post. I tend to think in terms of 7 shapes rather than 5, but the thinking's all the same. Inversions definitely help you move past the root note tedium. I thought of this inversion stuff before I had a system. It helped me immensely cause I could hear a chord like D major 7 and hear any tone (in the chord 1357) in my head and sing it. A while ago I worked on that George Benson thing of playing/ singing simultaneously. So by practicing inversions I was able to get away from "root bias". I could hear/ play from any note. The point of all of this "nerdosity" is just to open our ears and minds in new ways so our creativity and music expression is expanded and not hampered by our physical or intellectual limitations. I just want to get out of my "box" and get myself to play new things. So I continue to push myself in new directions. Systematically thinking helps me grow. Let's hope for the best.
Moderators Jed Posted April 28, 2007 Moderators Posted April 28, 2007 I don't think the best way to practice arps is in two octaves. I think inversions help you ultimately understand music better and thus become a better improvisor- which to me is simply being able to play what you hear in your head.I have recently been gravitating toward the CAGED system of fretboard organization which is more open than the dogmatic "string group" thing I learned in school.This is not the mainstream view of playing arps on the guitar. As far as I know there is nothing currently published that takes this approach to arps. I think that's because its ultimately 15-20 times more difficult and it cannot be learned based on patterns. Fingering patterns exist but they can't be the basis for you understanding this approach. You have to know what you are playing to use this approach. While I've got nothing against the CAGED system per se, but I've always been confused by the naming convention since all diatonic chords are available in any of the fingering patterns. So it seems odd to me to call a pattern "C" when every diatonic chord is available within that form and depending on the key there may not even be a "C" chord. I use the 7 Positional forms as my basis for this kind of thing already and if I understand correctly CAGED only uses 5 of the same 7 forms. I'm curious if there are any real differences between CAGED and Positional forms. Regarding specific exercises - I think the perceived value of any exercise depends on our individual goals. For instance you mention that you don't like the idea of 2-octave arpeggios (because presumably for you they are just patterns) but for me 2-octave arpeggios define regions of related notes in a way that your exercises do not. Of course your focus is different than mine so that is to be expected to some extent. My current focus is on seeing and hearing every location of every note for every arp from every key all over the fretboard at one time. To this end 2-octave arps in 7 positions have been a valuable approach, at least for me. I currently practice 2-octave arpeggios for maj, min & dim triads via the following exercises: per diatonic triad:1) 7 positions - starting from all root locations within each positional form, play all possible fingerings to the highest chord tone available in that position, down to the lowest note available (not exceeding 2-octaves) and back to the starting note. per position, diatonic arps (no 6th string starts / repeat in 7+1 positions) :1) scalar movement ascending and descending2) descending (diatonic) 3rds3) descending (diatonic) 5ths By triad type, per position (no 6th string starts):1) descending 5ths* this exercise results in working through seven 2-octave triad fingerings (for 7 different roots) in one position, the 8th triad moves the position down by one fret. I generally start at the 17th fret working my way down one fret at a time to the 5th fret and back up to the 17th fret. Every 2 fret pattern goes around the cycle of 5ths plus two more 5ths. This whole program is of course based on patterns but the patterns don't lead the hands - the brain does. I believe by changing the focus between scalar, descending 3rd, 5ths and between diatonic progressions and straight cycle of 5ths per triad type that I reinforce thinking in terms of chords and chord tones rather than in terms of patterns. I'm currently in the process of moving this whole system to 7th chord arps. Eventually the whole thing needs to be extended through each inversion of each chord as well. In general I find this approach to arpeggios encourages me to think in terms of all chord tones that are available to my hands regardless of where I am on the fretboard, so moving to inversions, while advantageous, should not prove to be particularly difficult. The important thing, I think, is for each of us to find what we need from an individual point of view to uncover our weaknesses. For each of us the focus will and should be a little different since we all have different goals and different sticking points to work through. cheers, PS I'm guessing that your arps as listed for the "G" form actually sneaks outside of that form since it appears to show a stretch between the middle and ring fingers in some places - (root position version, root on 6th string, 10th fret)
Members CBLjazz Posted April 28, 2007 Author Members Posted April 28, 2007 While I've got nothing against the CAGED system per se, but I've always been confused by the naming convention since all diatonic chords are available in any of the fingering patterns. So it seems odd to me to call a pattern "C" when every diatonic chord is available within that form and depending on the key there may not even be a "C" chord. I use the 7 Positional forms as my basis for this kind of thing already and if I understand correctly CAGED only uses 5 of the same 7 forms. I'm curious if there are any real differences between CAGED and Positional forms.Regarding specific exercises - I think the perceived value of any exercise depends on our individual goals. For instance you mention that you don't like the idea of 2-octave arpeggios (because presumably for you they are just patterns) but for me 2-octave arpeggios define regions of related notes in a way that your exercises do not. Of course your focus is different than mine so that is to be expected to some extent. My current focus is on seeing and hearing every location of every note for every arp from every key all over the fretboard at one time. To this end 2-octave arps in 7 positions have been a valuable approach, at least for me.I currently practice 2-octave arpeggios for maj, min & dim triads via the following exercises:per diatonic triad:1) 7 positions - starting from all root locations within each positional form, play all possible fingerings to the highest chord tone available in that position, down to the lowest note available (not exceeding 2-octaves) and back to the starting note.per position, diatonic arps (no 6th string starts / repeat in 7+1 positions) :1) scalar movement ascending and descending2) descending (diatonic) 3rds3) descending (diatonic) 5thsBy triad type, per position (no 6th string starts):1) descending 5ths* this exercise results in working through seven 2-octave triad fingerings (for 7 different roots) in one position, the 8th triad moves the position down by one fret. I generally start at the 17th fret working my way down one fret at a time to the 5th fret and back up to the 17th fret. Every 2 fret pattern goes around the cycle of 5ths plus two more 5ths.This whole program is of course based on patterns but the patterns don't lead the hands - the brain does. I believe by changing the focus between scalar, descending 3rd, 5ths and between diatonic progressions and straight cycle of 5ths per triad type that I reinforce thinking in terms of chords and chord tones rather than in terms of patterns.I'm currently in the process of moving this whole system to 7th chord arps. Eventually the whole thing needs to be extended through each inversion of each chord as well. In general I find this approach to arpeggios encourages me to think in terms of all chord tones that are available to my hands regardless of where I am on the fretboard, so moving to inversions, while advantageous, should not prove to be particularly difficult.The important thing, I think, is for each of us to find what we need from an individual point of view to uncover our weaknesses. For each of us the focus will and should be a little different since we all have different goals and different sticking points to work through.cheers,PS I'm guessing that your arps as listed for the "G" form actually sneaks outside of that form since it appears to show a stretch between the middle and ring fingers in some places - (root position version, root on 6th string, 10th fret) Sounds like our goals are the same. To be able to hear and play anything we want without any mental or fingering problems. I call this a mountaintop issue. We're trying to get to the same peak, we're just traveling on different sides of the mountain. All that matters is that we both reach our destination. Neither path is better. They will both lead us ultimately to the same destination.It's a matter of preference. 5 or 7 positions, it doesn't matter. I know both. Neither approach gives you more freedom. It's simply a matter of comfort. Neither approach has to be defended either. I simply came across a system of organizing the way I already thought. The inversion thinking was first the system came last. My system helps me organize & communicate my thinking as does yours. Ultimately I believe the string group approach is a linear view of the fretboard and the CAGED thing is a vertical view of the fretboard. I say this because string groups are organized combining positions that are multiple positions in the CAGED thinking. Also the CAGED system has less finger stretches. For example: the traditional 3 note per string 7 position system fingering of a C major scale at the 3rd fret combines some of the notes in the "A form" and the "G form" of the CAGED system. There isn't a perfect analogy between the two. I just personally felt like the string group thing always had me moving left and right and the CAGED thing has me moving up and down.That's why I said "string group"= linear & CAGED= vertical. My thinking helps me gain harmonic freedom as does yours. By the way, the CAGED thing is new to me (2 months). I've spent the last 12 years doing the string group thing (your approach). That's why I said, "I know it". I'm just trying something new hoping it'll open me up to new things.
Moderators Jed Posted April 28, 2007 Moderators Posted April 28, 2007 Sounds like our goals are the same. To be able to hear and play anything we want without any mental or fingering problems. I call this a mountaintop issue.We're trying to get to the same peak, we're just traveling on different sides of the mountain. All that matters is that we both reach our destination. Neither path is better. They will both lead us ultimately to the same destination. LOL I often use the same analogy. There's only one peak, lot's of different ways to get there. It's not so much which path we choose as long as we're climbing up. Neither approach has to be defended either. I simply came across a system of organizing the way I already thought. The inversion thinking was first the system came last. My system helps me organize & communicate my thinking as does yours. Agreed Ultimately I believe the string group approach is a linear view of the fretboard and the CAGED thing is a vertical view of the fretboard. I say this because string groups are organized combining positions that are multiple positions in the CAGED thinking. Also the CAGED system has less finger stretches. I'm unfamiliar with the "string group approach", at least by that name. The fingering patterns I use are simialr to 3nps on the lowest (pitch) strings but involve no positional shifts and do involve more than a few finger stretches. I kind of like the finger stretches as a way to train the hand and get me to think a bit differently with regard to available note locations. I think the forms I use translate more closely to CAGED than do the 3nps forms because as you pointed out the 3nps forms span multiple CAGED and Positional fingering forms. It's all good. My main point was more about chord tones available in any one region of the fretboard and use of that approach to see chords as extended collections of note locations as oppsed to patterns per se. cheers, happy hunting.
Members Jarardo Posted April 28, 2007 Members Posted April 28, 2007 Interesting Post CBL, you just made me want to practice.
Members CBLjazz Posted April 28, 2007 Author Members Posted April 28, 2007 Interesting Post CBL, you just made me want to practice. I think that's why we're all here, to get inspired by other thinkers.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.