How long to learn the CAGED system?

[amyFB]

Originally Posted by s0cks

Most experienced players I've spoken to have said they just learnt by ear, and continue to play by ear. They do know their theory, but it is their ear that guides them.



I guess theory helps you in the short term (it opens up the fretboard, and gives you more to work with), but ideally you want to get to a stage where you aren't even thinking in terms of theory, but simply following your ear (or rather translating what you hear in your head onto the guitar).



At the same time though, I don't have the time (at least not yet) to sit down and work out songs by ear by listening and experimenting over and over again. Tabs or tutorials are simply quicker, but I know they aren't anywhere near as beneficial.

Music is dynamic which gives it all kinds of variety.

There is a base formula (theory),

And there is freedom of movement (tempo ,rhythm chord ,progressions) .

Studying Caged or any other system will get the base settled in,

Listening and playing along with to what others have done with is what will help to open your improvisational freedom.

Good luck !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JonPR]

If I can provide my own answers to your questions to Wyllys... and spew out yet another overlong post...

Originally Posted by SunnyDee

You say you learned to play by ear and "eventually" progressed, etc., How long from the time you started listening to music (as a child) till you knew the theory inside out?
You did not learn the terminology of the theory by listening, so you must have, also, learned it from some other source. What was that and when?

I wasn't interested in music as a child - not until I was around 13, and started hearing pop music that appealed to me. That was 1962/63, and it was guitar instrumentals, the Shadows mainly.
At that time I was learning to read music in school and also to play the recorder, but had no idea of becoming a musician myself.

IOW, I knew some theory (notation, major scale) before I thought of myself as a musician. Music lessons were what every kid did, we all learned the same stuff. I was worse than most, in fact, because I couldn't sing.

I was around 15 when I started getting interested in actually making music myself. I didn't own an instrument (other than that recorder, which I couldn't really play), and amused myself with a tape recorder, sampling and editing music off the radio, and trying to build my own string instruments out of junk.
My best friends in school had a band, so there was peer influence there. It was clearly a cool thing to be a musician (this was London in 1964-5), and guitar was obviously the rebel's choice of weapon. Even so, it wasn't until I saw Donovan strumming an acoustic on his first ever TV appearance that I saw a "star" who I could identify with, that made me think I could be a guitarist too - no special equipment required!
Once I got my own guitar, I learned partly from a guitar manual, and partly from reading songbooks. I wrote songs from the very beginning (4 tunes in the first week I owned the guitar). They were obviously very bad (at least as bad as my guitar playing), but knowing notation gave me a way to write ideas down. Those early efforts were attempts to sound like the Shadows instrumentals that first inspired me, and also the R&B I was hearing from the Stones and other cool bands of the time.

After struggling with the guitar for 8 or 9 months, I was asked to join my friends band. I played my first public performance (strumming 3 or 4 simple chords while the others sang and played) a month larer.

In the next year or two I taught myself fingerstyle (folk, blues, ragtime) by using the tape recorder to slow records down. There were no books of that stuff in those days. Again, my notation skills meant I could write down what I was hearing, which helped memorise it. But learning it of course, was simply a matter of hammering away at the guitar hour after hour.
Naturally - being a teenager, and obsessed - I learned fast.
As with my technical skills, my improvisation and composition skills improved the more I listened to records and copied what I heard (as best as I could). The songbooks I read helped teach me how melody and chords work together (although that was clear enough from transcribing).

My focus was always on playing songs - not necessarily to perform them with the band, although live performance was always the "carrot" that led me forward, the whole point of being a musician in the first place. It was still recreation - I never considered myself anywhere near good enough to think of music as a career, we were all just having a laugh.

Originally Posted by SunnyDee

What evidence do you have that your method is so effective that you can confidently tell other people to stop learning theory?

Personally I would never tell anyone to "stop" learning theory - unless they weren't enjoying it, or were under the impression it was necessary to help them as a player or writer.

Good reasons for learning theory:
1. You're curious, you like knowledge for its own sake;
2. You want to be able to discuss music with other (qualified) musicians.
3. You want to become a professional teacher, or enrol on a college course where theory is mandatory.

Bad reasons for learning theory (because it won't answer the following):
1. "I want to know why this sounds good."
2. "I want to be a better player."
3. "I want to be a better improviser or composer."

Personally, I've been reading theory books of various kinds (and books on music history, psychology, acoustics, etc) for 50 years) - simply because it fascinates me. I never did it to become a better musician. And it hasn't (as far as I can tell) made me a better musician.
Theory helps you talk the talk. Walking the walk is about playing the guitar. Time on the instrument. Listening.

[post split into 2 to make it more disgestible. continued below...]

[Wyllys]

Theory is adequate for describing notes, patterns and relationships, but misses out on perhaps the prime consideration in music:

silence

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by SunnyDee

just saying, "this worked for me" and "I believe it" just isn't enough to support telling other people they are doing it wrong.

Well, all any of us can honestly say is "it worked for me".

I wouldn't go as far as to tell other people they're doing things wrong, unless they were hitting problems or difficulties with their methods, eg if they are finding theory baffling, or getting frustrated with lack of progress.
If their methods are working, if they're having fun and enjoying the music they're making, then it works for them, which is what counts.

The point I'd make is that I never set out to develop a method for learning - and that's not really what I'm recommending. Nobody told me to learn the way I did. (That guitar manual I learned from was flawed in many ways.) I stumbled along following my enthusiasms. Listening and copying the best I could. I learned things by ear only because there was no alternative, not because anyone told me it was important.
But I never had any problem improvising. I never found theory baffling. That's what I mean by "it worked for me". If I found any piece of music (or theory) too difficult, I'd ignore it - who needs it? I always played within my level of competence at each stage. Nobody needed me to do more.

Of course, as I said, I wasn't a professional, so there were never any demands on me to be better than I was. (Even now I am a professional - after 40 years as an amateur - there still aren't.)
For anyone who wants to be a professional musician, my advice would be different. Professionals commonly have to do things they don't enjoy, which requires a different level of discipline. It may require hard work.
Music as recreation is never hard work. If it is, you're doing something wrong. (I mean in the sense of an onerous chore. It can be a difficult challenge at times, but that's just exciting...)

Originally Posted by SunnyDee

You say, "I believe everyone can learn this. I believe that most already have this ability to some degree or other." What evidence is there for this?

The evidence that we are all musical (from birth) is that we all understand and appreciate music, to some degree. There is a "music instinct", just as there is a "language instinct" (in fact the two seem to be related.)
The only exceptions are the tiny minority who suffer from amusia (true tone-deafness), for whom music is meaningless noise.
The rest of us can all tell when one note is higher than another; which means we can all train for relative pitch, the essential musical skill.
We can also - without any musical education - tell a "wrong note" when we hear one, because of having heard "right notes" all our lives. Of course, it takes education to define what exactly is "wrong" about that note, and some theory jargon to be able to name it.

The younger you start learning music (as with almost anything) the quicker and better you learn (I was relatively late, starting at 16). Children can show phenomenal musical skills if they start young enough. It's as if our natural innate musicality wears off through childhood if it's not promoted. It never totally disappears, but it gets rusty and becomes harder to re-awaken in adulthood.

Learning an instrument, of course (including singing), requires learning physical skills, specific techniques. That's down to commitment and enthusiasm. No "talent" required other than the musical potential we're all born with.
The "trick" - if there is one - is not to regard musicianship as anything "special". It's a set of skills that anyone can develop. As with any hobby, you can get as good at it as you want, according only to your level of enthusiasm and the time you're prepared to devote to it.

To make music your profession, OTOH, is much like making anything else your profession. You may need some kind of college education. You will probably need tuition from professionals. You will probably need proved levels of skill and knowledge, over and above anything a recreational hobby would need - if only because being professional means being part of a working community, earning a living, and being adaptable for various jobs one might be asked to do.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Wyllys

Theory is adequate for describing notes, patterns and relationships, but misses out on perhaps the prime consideration in music:

silence

"Rests" are also part of music theory... "Tacet" is a theory term.

[Wyllys]

Originally Posted by JonPR

I wasn't interested in music as a child - not until I was around 13, and started hearing pop music that appealed to me.

A story:

I was visiting my mother a year or so before she passed away and as usual I borrowed a guitar and played a bit for her as we talked. After one piece she asked where in the world I had learned that. I said I'd always known it but I didn't know the title.

She told me that the song was a big hit on the radio for a couple of months when she was pregnant with me and she loved to sing along when it was on.

[Wyllys]

Originally Posted by JonPR

"Rests" are also part of music theory... "Tacet" is a theory term.

Do you mean "tacit"?

Further:

Theory will suggest possibilities. It will not tell you what sounds good.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Wyllys

Do you mean "tacit"?

"Tacit" is a general term for "implied or unstated". "Tacet" is the musical term for silent.

Originally Posted by Wyllys

Further:

Theory will suggest possibilities. It will not tell you what sounds good.

Right!

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Wyllys

A story:

I was visiting my mother a year or so before she passed away and as usual I borrowed a guitar and played a bit for her as we talked. After one piece she asked where in the world I had learned that. I said I'd always known it but I didn't know the title.

She told me that the song was a big hit on the radio for a couple of months when she was pregnant with me and she loved to sing along when it was on.

OK, but I'm sure you would also have heard it as a young child, probably forgetting later.
After all if it was a "big hit on the radio" before you were born, I doubt you would never have heard it again after that.

I'm not denying there can be musical influences in the womb. But influences outside it must be stronger, at least in the first few years of life.

[Wyllys]

Originally Posted by JonPR

OK, but I'm sure you would also have heard it as a young child, probably forgetting later.
After all if it was a "big hit on the radio" before you were born, I doubt you would never have heard it again after that.

I'm not denying there can be musical influences in the womb. But influences outside it must be stronger, at least in the first few years of life.

The point is that our musical experience is both concious and subconcious. Whether or not we are in a phase of life where we're interested, we have every experience stored away somewhere. Speed of access to this trove varies, but it's all there...somewhere. The trick is to let the connection happen. Copping the attitude "I can't" is self-limiting. Often "can't" may actually be "haven't" or "won't".

Check your PM's for an interesting link.

[Llewlyn]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Bad reasons for learning theory (because it won't answer the following):
1. "I want to know why this sounds good."
2. "I want to be a better player."
3. "I want to be a better improviser or composer."

I would bet that most music graduates would strongly argue with this.

Ll.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by Llewlyn

I would bet that most music graduates would strongly argue with this.

Ll.

One of the things a music graduate gets in their formal education courses is a lot of listening experiences. Ear exposure to a variety of actual music and improved (hopefully) critical listening ability. It's a "hands on" package of theory and listening examples that makes it real, makes it useful.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Llewlyn

I would bet that most music graduates would strongly argue with this.

Ll.

Hey, let them!

I should qualify that pesky little word "better", of course....

By "better player", I don't mean more intellectually knowledgeable. And I don't mean, of course, that theory will make you worse. It just won't improve your technique. (No argument there, surely.)
Likewise, for improvisation and composition, theory will help you name and describe stuff. And I would allow that it makes you a "better all-round musician" - because it gives you literacy. It will make it easier for you learn stuff, at least from books. (I believe college students use a lot of books...)

But it won't make you hear better, or make better choices when improvising or composing. It will enable you to choose cliches more easily and often, if you think that's a good thing (sometimes it is). It will enable safer playing, if you think that's a good thing (sometimes it is).
For composing, it will certainly help you write in certain well-known historical styles and forms, especially complicated ones. (You really can't write classical music without any theory knowledge!)

I'm not against theory at all (in case that's what you think). I like theory. But it has its limits. There are things it can't do, but then it was never designed to do those things anyway.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

One of the things a music graduate gets in their formal education courses is a lot of listening experiences. Ear exposure to a variety of actual music and improved (hopefully) critical listening ability. It's a "hands on" package of theory and listening examples that makes it real, makes it useful.

Exactly. And the other thing it does - maybe most useful of all - is introduce you to lots of other musicians.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Wyllys

The point is that our musical experience is both concious and subconcious. Whether or not we are in a phase of life where we're interested, we have every experience stored away somewhere. Speed of access to this trove varies, but it's all there...somewhere. The trick is to let the connection happen. Copping the attitude "I can't" is self-limiting. Often "can't" may actually be "haven't" or "won't".

Totally agree

Originally Posted by Wyllys

Check your PM's for an interesting link.

check yours