How long to learn the CAGED system?

[Nailpicker]

Originally Posted by Toby Walker

... Years ago, before anyone ever heard of this system, we learned how chords and scales worked together in by harmonizing them first and then applying that to the fingerboard by means of identifying where the root notes were. While it took some work, it was much less complicated in structure than the 55 shape CAGED system.... at least in my experience.

For what it's worth, many of the old-time jazz and blues players rarely depended on scales other than perhaps as exercises. Instead, they depended on improvising around the melodies creating variations and inventing motifs.

Not to say that learning the system is wrong. If it works for you, then all the power to you. Personally, I think there are easier methods for learning the fingerboard, but that's just me.

I agree. I took 12 years of formal lessons with 3 different teachers. They taught me how to play guitar without the use of any "system." In my life the use of many of the proliferation of "systems" whether around guitar playing or dog training involves shortcuts. And in my opinion shortcuts almost always have shortcomings.

[funkapus]

Originally Posted by Toby Walker

Yes, but I think that the system as it is described has too much density for its own good. Years ago, before anyone ever heard of this system, we learned how chords and scales worked together in by harmonizing them first and then applying that to the fingerboard by means of identifying where the root notes were. While it took some work, it was much less complicated in structure than the 55 shape CAGED system.... at least in my experience.

For what it's worth, many of the old-time jazz and blues players rarely depended on scales other than perhaps as exercises. Instead, they depended on improvising around the melodies creating variations and inventing motifs.

Not to say that learning the system is wrong. If it works for you, then all the power to you. Personally, I think there are easier methods for learning the fingerboard, but that's just me.

Toby, I hope you won't mind my picking your brain on this. This is a topic I really struggle with; and while there are chunks of this thread that I understand technically, deep understanding (in a way that actually impacts what I can play) has been very elusive. So I'll start with the simplest question I can think of:

When you say above that you think there are easier methods for learning the fingerboard, what do you mean by "learning the fingerboard"? What does "learning the fretboard" really mean? When one has done that (and I understand that it's probably not best thought of as a binary, learned/not-learned thing, but rather an ever-deepening understanding, but for the purposes of this discussion...), what does one now know that one didn't before, and what is one capable of that one wasn't before?

Here are some things that I can think of that one might mean by "learning the fingerboard":

1. knowing the names of the notes on the fretboard, so that I know that a specific string/fret position is a Bb, and that I know where all the As are, and so on;

2. knowing the fingering shapes for the five major chords and how to put them down to get the major chords you want (which seems to be the first thing stuff based on CAGED wants to teach you), and similarly for major dom7 chords; and having this *internalized*, so I can just do it when I need to, without having to consciously think "OK, I want to play a G7 up the neck, so if I use a C7 shape my 2nd-thru-5th strings are on the 8th-thru-10th frets," because by the time I've thought all that out the moment I needed the chord has passed;

3. #2, but for other chords than majors and dom7 chords (and if I understand it, this seems to be what the original poster was/is working on);

4. understanding that the major chord shapes are just subsets of major scale patterns, and presumably the same thing can be said of other chords (minor, diminshed, suspended, etc.), and knowing those pattersn, and having this *internalized* so that it's possible to easily improvise around the chord shape using notes in the scale patterns;

5. knowing positional relationships, so that if I'm at some location on the fretboard, I know what positions relative to that position will give me an octave up/down, or a third/fifth/seventh/whatever that's above or below the note I'm on (is this what practicing arpeggios helps you learn?);

6. internalizing #5 above, making it instinctive/thoughtless, so that if I just played a note, and I hear/feel the next note I want in my head, I can automatically go to the location relative to where I am to produce that note;

7. going even further on internalizing those positional relationships to include harmony as well, so that if I hear a harmonic relationship in my head I can fret and play the right notes, essentially constructing the chords (or at least intervals) I need on the fly.

8. doubtless other stuff I'm not even thinking of right now, or have never thought of.

Is this stuff what you mean when you refer to learning the fretboard? Is there other stuff you mean that I haven't touched on?

The only part of these that seems straightforward to me is #1 and to an extent #2 -- they seem like simple memorization tasks, and indeed I've made some progress on them from that approach. The others, I don't know. Most of the CAGED-related material I've come across presents information without giving me much guidance about how to really effectively learn it, internalize it, make it a thoughtless part of my playing in the way that I no longer *think* about how to make a D-major shape with my fingers. For the major chord shapes up the neck (#2), I've been trying to learn this by going to blues jams where there's enough people playing that I'm not going to mess anyone else up, and doing very simplistic fingerpicking somewhere other than first position, switching between the shapes/positions on each chorus. The realization that the intervals between chords will correspond to the intervals between shapes -- so if the tune's in E, and I'm picking it in A position around the 7th-9th frets, then my A and B7 will look like the D and E7 shapes because those have the same relationships to the A shape as the first position A and B7 do to the E -- that realization has helped. But that's all I've been able to figure out on my own as to what the process should be for learning any of this, and instructional materials seem to provide me lots of interesting information without much guidance as to how to internalize/make instinctive that information.

[jimrivera]

Originally Posted by Toby Walker

Yes, but I think that the system as it is described has too much density for its own good. Years ago, before anyone ever heard of this system, we learned how chords and scales worked together in by harmonizing them first and then applying that to the fingerboard by means of identifying where the root notes were. While it took some work, it was much less complicated in structure than the 55 shape CAGED system.... at least in my experience.

For what it's worth, many of the old-time jazz and blues players rarely depended on scales other than perhaps as exercises. Instead, they depended on improvising around the melodies creating variations and inventing motifs.

Not to say that learning the system is wrong. If it works for you, then all the power to you. Personally, I think there are easier methods for learning the fingerboard, but that's just me.

I ended up memorizing the fingerboard (well, up to fret 14, haven't gone past that yet) learning humble triads, which I think are great tools, and with only 6 shapes to remember in total, are much easier than the 55 CAGED ones. Though I admit I probably won't memorize all 55 as the study guides I'm using indicate many of the G-shapes are impractical.

Triads are great tools, but are just a bit limited in that they are only 3 notes, so they sound a bit thin compared to the four note bar/non-bar CAGED chords.

[rick-slo]

Most people would be better off spending ninety percent of their time with a combination of learning actual tunes (from start to finish, working on technique and expression) and in careful listening to develop a good ear. Then apply theoretical considerations of what you have learned to play, should you wish.

[jimrivera]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

What actual songs are you playing that you have been putting this to use?

I have taken some basic songs like say, brown eyed grl, and re-arranged the voicings to a different shape to see how the sounds compare. Since the chords are moveable all over the neck, some have sounded quite cool.

Someday my limited brain and even lesser talent will allow me to do so in real-time, like an improv, but that is some ways away.

[jimrivera]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Most people would be better off spending ninety percent of their time with a combination of learning actual tunes (from start to finish, working on technique and expression) and in careful listening to develop a good ear. Then apply theoretical considerations of what you have learned to play, should you wish.

Ha, possibly true, depending on perspective.

I put the world into 2 (yes overly simplistic) categories:

1) those who buy the toaster oven, plug it in, and play around with it until they figure out the controls

2) those who buy the toaster, read the entire manual from front to back, then plug it in.

Admittedly, most fall into #1, but I am solidly in #2.

I'm the guy that goes to the restaurant buffet, grabs a load of shrimp, and rather than peels them one at a time, will peel all 30 or so and then eat them. Same for lobster. Drives my family up a wall.

I guess it comes down to whatever approach each of our brains can best absorb; being very deliberate I prefer having a structure as it is through the shapes that I see the fingerboard. Unfortunately, it takes time to internalize all of the shapes, and where to place them to obtain the chord I want.

I think though that once I can do so with many of the shapes, I will be able to improvise and play chords all over with speed and little thought/concentration needed to pull them off. Hopefully.

[Wyllys]

Originally Posted by jimrivera

Ha, possibly true, depending on perspective.

I put the world into 2 (yes overly simplistic) categories:

1) those who buy the toaster oven, plug it in, and play around with it until they figure out the controls

2) those who buy the toaster, read the entire manual from front to back, then plug it in.

Admittedly, most fall into #1, but I am solidly in #2.

I'm the guy that goes to the restaurant buffet, grabs a load of shrimp, and rather than peels them one at a time, will peel all 30 or so and then eat them. Same for lobster. Drives my family up a wall.

I guess it comes down to whatever approach each of our brains can best absorb; being very deliberate I prefer having a structure as it is through the shapes that I see the fingerboard. Unfortunately, it takes time to internalize all of the shapes, and where to place them to obtain the chord I want.

I think though that once I can do so with many of the shapes, I will be able to improvise and play chords all over with speed and little thought/concentration needed to pull them off. Hopefully.

Jim...

There's a world of difference between making toast and making music.

[rick-slo]

Jimrevera, I will repeat my earlier question: What actual songs are you playing that you have been putting this to use?

[jimrivera]

Originally Posted by Wyllys

Jim...

There's a world of difference between making toast and making music.

I was never much of a cook, so I'll have to take your word on it though if you asked my wife she'd say I was equally poor at both.

Maybe substitute VCR or DVD player for a toaster, though that might be dating myself.

[jimrivera]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Jimrevera, I will repeat my earlier question: What actual songs are you playing that you have been putting this to use?

See post #50

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by jimrivera

See post #50

More than that one tune which you are dabbling in. Some other music you play up to tempo and accurately, originals perhaps.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Toby Walker

Years ago, before anyone ever heard of this system, we learned how chords and scales worked together in by harmonizing them first and then applying that to the fingerboard by means of identifying where the root notes were.

Pretty much how I did it, athough I think for me, the chords came before the scales. The chords kind of worked as skeleton outlines, armatures for the scales.

Originally Posted by Toby Walker

While it took some work, it was much less complicated in structure than the 55 shape CAGED system.... at least in my experience.

Yes, first I've heard of CAGED involving 55 shapes! Sounds ridiculous, I need to research that...

[Wyllys]

Originally Posted by Toby Walker

Yes, but I think that the system as it is described has too much density for its own good. Years ago, before anyone ever heard of this system, we learned how chords and scales worked together in by harmonizing them first and then applying that to the fingerboard by means of identifying where the root notes were. While it took some work, it was much less complicated in structure than the 55 shape CAGED system.... at least in my experience.

For what it's worth, many of the old-time jazz and blues players rarely depended on scales other than perhaps as exercises. Instead, they depended on improvising around the melodies creating variations and inventing motifs.

Not to say that learning the system is wrong. If it works for you, then all the power to you. Personally, I think there are easier methods for learning the fingerboard, but that's just me.

Originally Posted by JonPR

Pretty much how I did it, athough I think for me, the chords came before the scales. The chords kind of worked as skeleton outlines, armatures for the scales.
Yes, first I've heard of CAGED involving 55 shapes! Sounds ridiculous, I need to research that...

I first heard of the CAGED system here. It pretty much describes what I grew into through developing a repetoire of music over the years. As such, the system itself is derivative. Learning a system, then applying it to the music essentially makes the music derivative.

As to the statement in bold above, I found a great piece on the Web the other day:

https://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/17...-Chord-Melody#

Regarding "55", I think rather of triads, enhanced triads and inversions thereof. The numeric total of fingerboard possibilities is WAY secondary to simply knowing the "build" and how to get it where you want it. Mr. Roberts refers to this when mentioning "vertical and horizontal" structure.

Are we having fun yet?

[Wyllys]

Originally Posted by jimrivera

I was never much of a cook, so I'll have to take your word on it though if you asked my wife she'd say I was equally poor at both.

Maybe substitute VCR or DVD player for a toaster, though that might be dating myself.

Have you tried polishing your guitar with cold-pressed virgin Greek olive oil?

Yummy...

[Toby Walker]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Most people would be better off spending ninety percent of their time with a combination of learning actual tunes (from start to finish, working on technique and expression) and in careful listening to develop a good ear. Then apply theoretical considerations of what you have learned to play, should you wish.

I agree 110%. Most of my practicing was involved learning new songs and trying to apply the theoretical knowledge to them. For instance, if I were learning a song like 'All The Things You Are,' I would first listen to as many variations of how the song was played as possible. Next, I would look over the song and memorize the basic melody and chord progression, and try out variations on that melody as I improvised. At that point, I would then try to see which scales, arpeggios, and chord variations I could apply to the song.