How long to learn the CAGED system?

[Pine]

Originally Posted by paulp1960

I've noticed recently there is a consensus from many players, whether seasoned in theory or not, that playing songs is the most important activity for somebody starting out.

I suppose if you don't like anybody else's songs and were determined to make your own music it would seem a chore to learn songs not written by yourself.

The songs I choose to learn I really like and it gives me a lot of pleasure.

I would agree that there is a majority who propose "just play songs", but would not agree that there is consensus about that.

I have followed this thread with interest, and have appreciated everyone's point of view. Really appreciate SunnyDee's posts. He is articulate and respectful, while disagreeing with the majority. I wish I had that knack.

I would also like to send an apology to JonPR. When I re-read an earlier post I made, it sounded like I was saying Jon was dismissive of other folks views. I wasn't referencing you in that part Jon, and didn't feel that way about your posts.

[mattbn73]

I think that there's a real sweet spot between just purely working tunes vs working some technical aspect of the music generally. If I had to guess, I'd say that the best players seamlessly work in technical development into actual actual tune practice in a way that is so integrated that they come away basically thinking of it as "just playing tunes". The very real truth is that the vast majority of beginning/intermediate students don't possess this skill. So, I think a lot of these kinds of conversations ate people talking part each other.

Anyway, it's probably the most important aspect of learning to play: learning to integrate technique acquisition with the development of repertoire. When people say "just learn tunes", many interpret that as "just PLAY tunes", but there is a profound difference between "play" and "practice". Practice isn't just PLAYING something over and over. It's assessing weaknesses in your performance of a tune, breaking down technical aspects that are reflected in those weak spots, working them in isolation, and then bringing it back to the actual tune and applying it to other tunes you know.

This kind of holistic approach is pretty difficult for some of us more analytical types. It's easy to go down paths that bog down in technical-for-technical's sake for sure, and that leads many to mistakenly label things like technical work, focused practice, theory and other non-directly-tune-based endeavors as being a "waste of time".

For me personally, the last 3 years have involved a very large about of technical work, but I was actually ready for it this time. I have a much firmer grasp of the tune-integration aspects than I ever did before. In the past, maybe it truly was more like "wasted time", because I didn't know WHY I was learning certain skills, and I didn't know HOW to integrate them into tunes.

Any technical skill has to have a PURPOSE and multiple tunes to which it can be applied. If it doesn't, you're going to have to keep practicing it every day pointlessly just to keep from losing it. By contrast, things which are applied to tunes won't be lost. I mean if you're going to learn every position of a m7b5 chord, you'd better be playing a tune like Stella by Starlight, which works the crap our of those, or else be able to apply as a sub for dom9 chords in blues tunes etc., but you need to have some idea of why. You're brain doesn't "care" about your m7b5 gap out that you come back to our later when you actually need it.

Technical-work-as-villain is a red herring. All the great players are great at technical work, even if they find a way to do it which doesn't feel like drudgery. Maybe go slower and spend more time APPLYING to real music, but technical work ITSELF isn't the problem....

[rick-slo]

Well yeah, when you are working on a new tune in order to learn it you will either already know or will need to learn the techniques the tune requires. So you might hone in on some scale work fingering and precision, some new chord shapes, etc.. Immediate musical feedback for your efforts. Problems could be being satisfied with half baked levels of performance or never or rarely taking on tunes with any degree of technical (and or interpretive) challenges.
I have seen and heard people play a bunch of unpolished tunes and other people who can zip around on scales, etc., but play very few actual tunes. Neither one is satisfactory.

[tonyo]

I've noticed recently there is a consensus from many players, whether seasoned in theory or not, that playing songs is the most important activity for somebody starting out.

I would wholeheartedly agree. I tried to learn 25 years ago, and had scales crammed down my throat as one of the first things. It sucked the living soul out of me.

Picked up the guitar again 5 years ago and had a clear goal: learn to play songs that others will sing along to.

Now that I've got a repertoire of about 50 songs that I play fingerstyle / rhythm to, I'm learning scales, caged system and every bit of theory I can digest. And all of that is making me a better player.

Do I now wish I'd learned scales first? Not on your life. One has to get the passion for music and playing first.

Best description I've seen on when someone should learn scales / caged / etc is when the reason for doing so is very specific. "It'll make you a better player in the long run" is too vague (for most people).

If you are teaching others, please don't suggest scales or any theory too soon.

[Wyllys]

Originally Posted by tonyo

I would wholeheartedly agree. I tried to learn 25 years ago, and had scales crammed down my throat as one of the first things. It sucked the living soul out of me.

Picked up the guitar again 5 years ago and had a clear goal: learn to play songs that others will sing along to.

Now that I've got a repertoire of about 50 songs that I play fingerstyle / rhythm to, I'm learning scales, caged system and every bit of theory I can digest. And all of that is making me a better player.

Do I now wish I'd learned scales first? Not on your life. One has to get the passion for music and playing first.

Best description I've seen on when someone should learn scales / caged / etc is when the reason for doing so is very specific. "It'll make you a better player in the long run" is too vague (for most people).

If you are teaching others, please don't suggest scales or any theory too soon.

Great story.

I sometimes tell folks you learn the first five tunes individually, then you start to see the similarities in approach. You've begun to "learn how to learn".

The next ten come a bit more easily and you start to notice both the similarities and the "different froms", IOW, you're getting enough to have some points of reference.

The next twenty roll by. You're starting to branch out now. At this point you should have enough material to reference such that a little work with a system like CAGED and a bit of work on chord naming/building is no longer out in left field.

I'll admit that my aspirations shifted early on from being able to play a bunch of songs to being able to play music as I heard it. If you're working within a specific genre, style or the like, it's not that difficult. It's harder when you're presented with a distinctly different style.

Still, taking the time to have a goodly number of songs will lend context to any study of theory.

[Ze.]

I treat theory like water from a well ...if i drink all the water from the well its going to make me ill but if i use the well to quench my thirst i value the well as somewhere to call on daily .Songs show you how its done and i bet there isnt a player here that couldn't do with a bit more of that .

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by SunnyDee

But actually, yes, I am learning techniques for some "unknown song in the future" because that song will be mine.

You mean for composing your own song? Yes, a perfectly valid reason for practising techniques.

Originally Posted by SunnyDee

And I do get terribly bored hearing myself play or sing someone else's song over and over and trying to memorize it, even if I really liked it before hearing it a hundred times. That's partly just because songs I can master are still fairly simple musically. I never have to work to memorize my own.

Yes, the point at which you get bored playing someone else's song is the point at which you EITHER search for a less boring song by someone else OR you write your own.

But writing your own is much easier, the more other people's songs you've learned, because that's where you get the vocabulary, the phrases, changes and tricks.

I probably said this before, but I always did both, right from the beginning: learned other people's songs, and wrote my own. What I never did was practice techniques, or scales, or anything that wasn't part of a song I was learning. (OK, maybe sometimes I'd practice a scale, but only as a warm-up.) My own songs were naturally crude at the beginning, but improved noticeably the more I studied other people's songs. I certainly never considered (as some seem to) that I "wasn't good enough yet" to write my own stuff. Of course I was crap at it - I was a beginner! But you learn by doing it. Getting it wrong and trying again.
Naturally this was all in the privacy of my bedroom - I knew my songs weren't good enough to present to anyone else. But you can't wait until you think your playing is good enough before you write - because you still have to practice writing.
(In fact, I'm pretty sure a friend and I did perform one of our own songs in public when I'd only been playing for 9 or 10 months. He'd written the words, me the music. I don't remember the response it got, however.... but nobody actually booed or threw anything, so it can't have been too bad.)

[SunnyDee]

Originally Posted by JonPR

You mean for composing your own song? Yes, a perfectly valid reason for practising techniques.
Yes, the point at which you get bored playing someone else's song is the point at which you EITHER search for a less boring song by someone else OR you write your own.

But writing your own is much easier, the more other people's songs you've learned, because that's where you get the vocabulary, the phrases, changes and tricks.

I probably said this before, but I always did both, right from the beginning: learned other people's songs, and wrote my own. What I never did was practice techniques, or scales, or anything that wasn't part of a song I was learning. (OK, maybe sometimes I'd practice a scale, but only as a warm-up.) My own songs were naturally crude at the beginning, but improved noticeably the more I studied other people's songs. I certainly never considered (as some seem to) that I "wasn't good enough yet" to write my own stuff. Of course I was crap at it - I was a beginner! But you learn by doing it. Getting it wrong and trying again.
Naturally this was all in the privacy of my bedroom - I knew my songs weren't good enough to present to anyone else. But you can't wait until you think your playing is good enough before you write - because you still have to practice writing.
(In fact, I'm pretty sure a friend and I did perform one of our own songs in public when I'd only been playing for 9 or 10 months. He'd written the words, me the music. I don't remember the response it got, however.... but nobody actually booed or threw anything, so it can't have been too bad.)

Yes, like this. This is the what I'm doing. All of the techniques I am practicing I have worked into bits of music, they become improvisations, riffs, songs, etc. I'm just also learning theory and ear-training and sight reading... all at once. Of course, I pay attention to other people's music, I'm just not practicing it to perform it. After all, I can't imagine anyone telling an art student to spend years just copying over and over again someone else's painting.

Glad to hear no one threw anything. Always a plus.

[Ze.]

Originally Posted by SunnyDee

Yes, like this. This is the what I'm doing. All of the techniques I am practicing I have worked into bits of music, they become improvisations, riffs, songs, etc. I'm just also learning theory and ear-training and sight reading... all at once. Of course, I pay attention to other people's music, I'm just not practicing it to perform it. After all, I can't imagine anyone telling an art student to spend years just copying over and over again someone else's painting.

Glad to hear no one threw anything. Always a plus.

Hey Sunny your describing my approach as you describe your own .Its like Toby Walker says though that you have to become a good thief ...to do that you do have to spend some time on material out there but as Neil Young says "there's no way you can own it " we borrow to make music .Chord progressions have been around for a long time and i see myself as a reinvent er more than an inventor .Words do however put an individual touch to the package but i have leaned to instrumental music preferring not to become involved in the war of words that goes on ...if you say anything its very hard not to take part in it (the war of words).

[s0cks]

Originally Posted by SunnyDee

After all, I can't imagine anyone telling an art student to spend years just copying over and over again someone else's painting.

Very true, but they most definitely study different artists and try to copy the same techniques for the sake acquiring more skills and knowledge.

The best method, imo, is to learn songs above your skill level. This will improve your technique. All the while, using your theory & ear knowledge to improvise as well.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by SunnyDee

After all, I can't imagine anyone telling an art student to spend years just copying over and over again someone else's painting.

Well actually:

Copying (old master's for example) drawings and paintings is a time-tested discipline

http://italianrenaissanceresources.c...-and-practice/


http://www.realistartresource.com/th...ion-of-copying

P.S. the bolded part of the quote is quite an over exaggeration of anything that was posted in this thread

[SunnyDee]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Well actually:

Copying (old master's for example) drawings and paintings is a time-tested discipline

http://italianrenaissanceresources.c...-and-practice/


http://www.realistartresource.com/th...ion-of-copying

P.S. the bolded part of the quote is quite an over exaggeration of anything that was posted in this thread

Certainly, yes, it used to be. When people apprenticed for room and board from early adolescence. I've just returned from a trip to the Prado and seen Rubens' Adam and Eve after Titian painted in the early 1600s. People still copy others' music in classical study as well, because the emphasis there is on becoming a performer, an instrumentalist, who can duplicate the work perfectly. Many classical musicians never improvise.

But, values and education have changed. Modern art students don't do this for very long at all, certainly not for decades as some people here have discussed. These are the art students I was referring to. Every art school has galleries of students' original work. And late beginners on an instrument who want to compose, I think, really wouldn't do it very long.

We all play other people's songs at first, for a while, to a degree. I am no exception. I only take issue with two parts of this idea: that one should stop learning all the other things I've learned this year to only play songs for years and that it's necessary to practice these songs beginning to end, over and over again to performance level (also taking years), in order to learn to play guitar. Both of these things have been proposed here.

[Wyllys]

Nobody says stop. The gist has been to emphasize playing and learning material as a first priority until you have enough of a library of music in your head so that you have an experiential reference when studying theory. PRACTICAL theory results.

I think you'll find that those recommending building playing experience before examining things from a theory viewpoint are doing it in hindsight having spent decades or a lifetime playing music. It's a matter of priorities.

How long have you been playing? I think you'll find that over time both your view of playing AND your view of theory will evolve.
The two are interactive and in the end both will seem clearer and simpler. Sometimes one will be ahead of the other, but in the end it's the playing that is what matters to me. I don't have to understand it in a formal way until I have to communicate it to someone without being able to play it for them and even then it's just a representation rather than a living melodic entity.

Theory is fascinating, music is infinite or as Pine says in his signature to post #136, "Theory explains music, but theory is not music." My signature uses a more clinical metaphore.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by SunnyDee

I only take issue with two parts of this idea: that one should stop learning all the other things I've learned this year to only play songs for years

No one suggested that or would agree with that. Re-read what is being said where you think you saw that. You can continue to pick up new things (skill levels, techniques, new ideas) over the years of course. Playing, theory, playing theory...as you go along. Develop both side by side as you go along.

Originally Posted by SunnyDee

and that it's necessary to practice these songs beginning to end, over and over again to performance level (also taking years), in order to learn to play guitar. Both of these things have been proposed here.

[/QUOTE]
I suggest you learn some tunes to a high level. That is where technique, memory, expression have the best chance to shine. You will gain a lot. Repetition is a required. Working on a particular tune(s) does not mean that you do not have time to work on other things, be that your general repertoire, theory, listening, etc.. Some tune taking years (or months, or even weeks IMO) to be able to play well means that tune is too far beyond your current skill level. Work your way along with more appropriate tunes.

[SunnyDee]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

No one suggested that

People have, for example, Wyllys said, "The later you start, the quicker you should go directly to playing tunes rather than wasting your time trying to learn two things at once." He said it was quicker, but then describes a 20-year process, which to someone starting in their 50s is, frankly, terrifying. But the fact that people did suggest that learning other things was wasting time earlier in the discussion is ok. No reason to start quoting all of them now, because posters are starting to temper their original statements to be more inclusive and that was really my goal here. My goal was not to argue, it was to state another view so that beginners who are approaching learning guitar from a different perspective might be less discouraged by absolutist statements that amount to "you don't need to know that."

Originally Posted by rick-slo

I suggest you learn some tunes to a high level. That is where technique, memory, expression have the best chance to shine. You will gain a lot.

You are absolutely right that other performance skills are gained when playing to this level. There's also a great deal to be gained just by performing for others. I am, personally, attempting this on a few songs, just for that reason. You're absolutely right there.

I just shy away from the view that tells beginners to spend years and hundreds of songs doing only that when it doesn't suit their goals. Some posters don't seem to take into account those different goals, that understanding how music is structured along with other aspects of musicality besides performance and technique might actually be the goal. If knowing all of it is their goal, telling beginners who ask a question about it that "you don't need to know all that" is not really helpful, imo.

If I were 16 and had years to learn by ear, I'd certainly try to do that. You guys are all right about that being a wonderful way to develop; it's just not the only way. And for every long time player I hear say they don't need theory, I meet another who's been playing for decades and wishes he'd gotten around to learning theory earlier. I just attempted here to articulate a positive view of a different learning process for those googling beginners in the future who might be learning it all in a different way.