rSoGuitar :: Guitar Lessons for Visual Music Theory

[Chris Rassi]

Not at all! Its so easy, a caveman could do it! (you would not believe the rights I had to acquire to actually say that without getting sued)

Anyways, here I am. As opposed to not being here. I am one of Fred Pool's long distance students (unfortunately), and Maryland sucks. If you think the online lessons are amazing, which they truely are, then you might literally die if you met Fred in person for one of his sit down lessons. I did the math and I think I invested somewhere around $800 in 1 on 1 lessons. And to be honest, I want my money back, dammit. Hahah, I'm just kidding. The places that this method has taken me really astonishes me. I'm not a traditional student by any means. And what I mean by that is I've only taked lessons through the Fred man. But meeting the people I have and comparing what they know to what I know, it is an obvious difference. And all of the people that I have met really didn't know much about theory. This method is like liquid theory, that you inject intravenously into your fingertips. Painfully at first, but like any addict, it only gets better. And harder to quit. Moving on. I was reading through various articles and I came across this one paragraph which I felt necessary to bring to this forum:

[admin]

Chris,
Thanks for your great input. But I want to point out that the way you put it there near the end actually sounds a bit inaccurate:
"...that so many people have bashed Fred's method..." According to my calculations I wouldn't really call it "so many". Right, Chris? I mean, I've only had a few real battles with a few stubbord knuckle-heads. I think I may have given you the wrong impression with the few times I've raved over those few incidents.
So, let's see...there was that one guy named Brian. Of course you remember him. He was so stubborn! You used to come in right after his lesson and hear all the red-hot steam trying to escape from my spinal chord. Teaching him was like trying to teach a mule fine-motor skills. No, he wasn't that bad. I don't want him to read this post someday and get all pissed off. I mean, to put it more accurately...teaching him was like trying to instruct a side of beef after it's been seperated from the other half. No, no...wait. That's still too harsh! Let me try again....
Teaching Brian was like (and you can work on your own rendition if you like. Feel free...) like sanding a dead guy's eye sockets in an attempt to retrofit a set of Top Flight golf balls. : ) Sorry! I don't think I'm actually any good at finding a proper description of this case. I seem to always want to overdo it, just for the sheer fun of it. Like, I start off trying to explain that the guy approached me with a deal like this: "Teach me, but don't show me anything I don't already know." It would make sense to point that out, because it's really acurate. But just before I can come out with that line, my mind just takes off and says something like: "Vini, Vidi, Sucki" which, of course, in Italian means "He came, He covered his eyes, He sucked." You know what I mean? I hate it when I do that! Or another time I tried to explain him...I think I started off with how he spent hours explaining that he had this mysterious inner power to cause great music to happen in close proximity to himself and that just by spending time in his presence I was bound to acquire some of that neat skill he claimed to have. But just before I could tell you that, I hauled off and said something to the effect of: "He has a bad habit of taking solitary, insecure lies, cutting them it into paper thin sheets, using a bologna slicer he stole from a late 1950's propaganda film (one of those rare documentaries that only played for about a week on UHF between midnight and 3 AM) packaging them up using cheap toilet paper, and selling them on ebay." So, it's easy to see that I'm just having a little good-natured fun, but at what expense. I mean, I've been on here for a while now and haven't really said anything! Working with Brian was a serious challenge. It was like being in charge of a very full cup of scalding hot coffee while standing in the middle of one of those bouncy room things...you know, the kind that kids jump all around in at birthday parties?
Now, there have a been a number of hard nuts to crack that have come to me over the years. I think they only come to me to prove that I really can't teach them anything. Yeah, I think that's why they harden their brains well ahead of time. If they can just make sure I don't teach them anything new, well, then they have proven that they are at the top...that there's nothing more to learn, because they know everything already. To allow me to teach them even one small point would disprove this idea, and so they resist. And all the while I can see from the way they play that they really have a ways to go.
Anyway, the only other guy who really stands out after Brian is that guy I argued with on wholenote.com He was very knowledgable, but very much set in the idea that "pattern players" were inherently deficient. I understand pretty well why he would and still does think so. But I tried to explain to him that with my method, there is something that serves to defeat what has typically been the main complaint again pattern playing, as he called it. The fact that the rsog has a family of chords, with generic names not only overcomes that problem that he is out to warn everyone about...not only that, but it actually offers guitarists (and other instrumentalists too) something that has never existed in the traditional music theory world, as far as I am aware. I have probed the minds of as many traditional music theorists as I can reasonably get my hands on and I have yet to come across a device to serve the purpose that my family of chords serves. The international numbering system gets close, but it is fatally flawed as far as serving the same purpose. (It wasn't designed for the same purpose, and therefore is clearly not flawed to that purpose for which it was designed.) But nowhere can I find a redundancy in my family of chords. I challenge anyone out there to find it! Really, I want to know if I have reinvented the wheel, because, as far as I can see, I haven't. The family of chords is my real claim to fame. However excited so many guitarists want to get over my chapters on soloing over the pattern, head sets, bridge sets, etc...none of that compares to the power of getting seriously sharp about the family of chords. It's the chords that give you the license to drive. It's the chords that allow you to play other scales, change keys, etc.
Back to the topic concerning how many have fought with me over my method...I have also had a few run-ins with blues players. Blues doesn't exactly fit into a box. It's nature is to bend and break the "rules". So, it can be really hard to get these guys who've gotten so use to just going with certain riffs for certain situations to actually learn something that is so clearcut and concrete. The blues only opens up to your understanding after you've learned the fundamentals of the rsog method.
As for me, you could say I learned my sense of adventure by playing the blues early on. I used to do things I didn't understand and fair pretty well, while playing bluesy stuff long before the rsog concept materialized in my mind. After developing rsog I started finding ways to break rules and actually knowing what my concrete options were, while at the same time, knowing full well that I could still throw logic to the wind and whip out some wild-eyed blues moves.
I was pretty pleased with myself as a blues-dude and found myself thinking I had really arrived somewhere special. So, I can relate as I see these blues players who feel like they don't want to spoil what they've got. Their way of life reinforces the idea that they should and don't need logic to play well...that all they need is the right energy and a good ear. But I also hit the ceiling many times, back in those days. I would get to a spot where I just couldn't get any better, and I'd wonder what I needed to do to break through to a higher level. And I knew there were higher levels because I could see other guitarists who were there. I just didn't know what stood between me and them. Once I learned more theory, by eating, sleeping, and drinking this new method, I looked back and could really see what I wasn't seeing all those years. I really looked foolish in some respects, but I also know that things take time and the right opportunity. Even further, some things that work for some people just don't work for others.
So, I guess what concerns me are the people who ARE open to my method. I hope they are seeing the potential. I really do, because as of yet I haven't been able to put the really advanced ideas out there for everyone to see. So far, I've only shown the basic fundamentals that lead to the next chapter. Of course, the next chapter will digest with incredible speed if the learner really has a concrete vision of the basics. I mean, the next book is "#OSis". If you know where OSis is and what sharping her does to the pattern, then you've got it! We're done!!! But, the obvious may escape most people, so I feel the need to actually compose the next set of instructions to guide them all into seeing clearly how #OSis effects each and every preexisting family member in a unique way. And that her move effects the sequence of shapes as you solo across the pattern. The learning should know that playing chords that involve #OSis invokes that new scale, that change to the infinite bass pattern. In the end, a player should be able to move into and out of Harmonic Minor with great ease while never losing sight of the original map, because they are essentially one and the same thing. rSoG...the great "oneness".

[admin]

Well, race-fans! Just in case you haven't heard enough about the differences between traditional mentality and the rsog method, I've copied just about all of the arguement I had with this distinguished gentleman from "the mother-country" for your reading pleasure. And, don't get me wrong...I ended up respecting the guy as a person and musician...but in the end I felt he still didn't get my vision. And I was too wore out to care any longer whether he could see it or not.
Bon apetite!

(PS This is also good for me as search engines will likely index it and help my ratings! Am I a sly devil or what!?! : )

• Respond to this
Re: ok folks lets get down to it.
7/9/2005 1:54:53 AM
Fred Pool (114) wrote:
Well, Mike...I've been reading through your string/conversation and it looks like a good enough place to throw my two cents in. I've been hard at work devising a new system. It's not a system to stomp out the five ledger line traditional system...(other instruments need that system)...it's a system that specializes for the guitar. For example, as far as reading music, tablature beats the hell out of the old way (at least it does in my opinion...but this isn't my point). My system is about a visual geography that's more like what goes through a guitarist's mind when they are playing. It's more about shapes and how the shapes tell you where you are and where you can go.
I could sit here and try to explain it real good...but I might as well refer to what I've put together here: http://www.garlandpool.com/rStone.html
If you look it over and find that you've already found something just like it...please TELL ME! Because, so far, I haven't been able to find anything like it...and that has left me with having to make it myself. If it's the only one of it's kind, it could be a phenomenon.
Now, understand that all I have so far is the stuff covering soloing over the pattern. No need for A#, etc. What I really can't wait to show everyone is the stuff on Chords!








• Respond to this
Re: ok folks lets get down to it.
7/16/2005 6:47:15 AM
Jon Riley (9026) wrote:
That's a beautifully designed site, Fred, and it's certainly an intelligent way of viewing and conceptualising the major scale patterns.

I've not seen anything exactly like it...although most guitar tuition material has stuff that's close (if rarely so fully thought out).

However, I'm not sure how useful this is as a learning tool. It obviously lacks any reference to notes as such. (You even refer to the white notes of the piano as "the major scale", when in fact it's the "C major scale".)
IMO, this means it suffers from all the problems associated with the common pattern-learning approach. While there is obviously just one overall pattern for a major scale, this shifts up and down the neck (as you know) for different keys, and also can be broken down into positional boxes, each of which can be thought of as a "pattern".
And we haven't even talked about harmonic and melodic minor, pentatonics, diminished scales, etc.
One can come away with the idea that there are 100s of different scales. And we need to remember all of them! Or we need to remember exactly where to place them for whatever key (or chord) we're playing over.

None of this is necessary once we know the fretboard - where all the notes are. Knowing the notes (and also the notes in every chord and scale) means not only that we're free of pattern learning, but that we understand all the connections, we can see the logic. Pattern-based learning without the notes is "blind" knowledge.
In fact there are very few scale TYPES. Once you know their structure (and can find root notes), you work out the rest.

Learning the notes (in each scale, chord, and fret on the neck) is not hard if you know some simple theoretical formulas. You start from some very basic things, and work the rest out from there. Once you know the notes and basic chord structure theory, everything else falls into place.

I learned this way accidentally, btw. I started off with some theory knowledge from school: notation, bit of major scale theory.
I taught myself guitar from a book that used notation (no tab in those days) and chord boxes. I didn't encounter scale patterns and tab until many years later, when I was quite an experienced player (and the dreaded modes came some years after that ).
But I can honestly say I was never confused about scales, keys, how to choose notes for soloing, etc. To me it was all obvious, from my (small) theoretical knowledge, and knowledge of the fretboard, which I'd achieved through chord shapes (and knowing the notes in the chords), and from listening to records.
So the emphasis on patterns I keep seeing - and the associated confusion among beginners - mystifies me. Why don't people just learn the notes!
Sure, the patterns are there, and they exert fascination. The visual aspect is an important learning tool (we have eyes, we may as well use em). But without the note names - the understanding of application - it's "dead" information.

You say your concept is "a visual geography that's more like what goes through a guitarist's mind when they are playing". Maybe. It's not exactly what goes through my mind.
True, it is more or less what I see as I play - but what goes through my mind is the notes I'm playing and their relationship to the current key and chord. The latter is the real musicial information that matters. The patterns are incidental, irrelevant.

So I like your maps as a visual representation of the neck (and I admire the way you've put the site together, so far - very cool, nice to use). And I also expect it would be a handy alternative viewpoint for some learners (combined with other methods).
But I don't think it's quite the "phenomenon" you claim. There's nothing really new there - just a re-jigged (and arguably superior) way of displaying it.
And as I say, it omits what I consider the most important part of learning guitar (as with any instrument): the note names and positions.

But I hope I don't sound discouraging (or patronising)! . I think you should stick with it, and I look forward to how the site develops. Ther IS something useful/interesting there. Keep us posted.

JonR










• Respond to this
Re: ok folks lets get down to it.
7/16/2005 11:35:22 AM
Andy Wood (4310) wrote:
I'm with you Jon. The reason I feel able to explore the neck without feeling boxed into discreet patterns and trying to connect them is because I see them as notes. I see them in a similar way a pianist might visualise his combination of white and black notes. Pianists have an advantage in this respect because they have more symmetry and the triadic structure is easier to conceive than it is on a guitar with its irregular tuning.

Imo, the sooner a person begins to conceive the fretboard in terms of notes, the sooner he will be comfortable. The patterns which are often mentioned here then become logical consequences of that note awareness.

Here's my personal example: For the first few years of my playing I played in about 8 keys very frequently - usually the ones which allowed creative use of open strings. Due to all the jamming and repetition with those keys, I got to know them inside and out. I always felt secure and that I knew the whole fretboard when soloing in those keys. This quickly led to knowing the corresponding arpeggios.

BUT, in time, becoming preferential to those keys meant that I had neglected most of the flat keys. This became clear when I started learned jazz and fusion. All that confidence I had in my favourite keys vanished and I found myself resorting to patterns starting on notes I was sure of. The result on my playing was dramatic! If I listened back to a recording of my improvised solos in these flat keys, they sounded so contained and less lyrical and expressive. The pattern approach contains us and we fall into what is logical for the fingers rather than what we would naturally want to hear.

How many people hear can imagine a fluid, seamless solo in their head - one that is free from any limitations and has nothing to do with notes or patterns? I would say almost everybody here can do this. Learning the fretboard as notes is the only way to really appraoch this - even if it's your own conception of what "notes" means, and not the traditional orthodox way. I'm talking about having a conception of the fretboard that means you know where the notes you seek actually are. Even people who don't think in theoretical terms develop an equivalent system so they know where their "right" notes are and where their "wrong" notes are.

Anyway, when I thought about it, I realised that the reason I was so effortless on some keys and so uncomfortable in others was because I had had roughly 1000 times the practise on my favourite keys! The solution was simple, quit jamming on what was easy and put that time into my problem keys. The first thing I did was pick my worst key (Eb at the time) and I only allowed myself to jam in that key for a week. It was all I needed to get over that problem. It was annoying at first but after a few days, I was able to visualise Eb all over the neck and my phobia of that key was extinguished.

I would recommend this approach to anybody. Everybody feels totally sure with their A and E minor blues scales because we have explored them so thoroughly and know all those nuances without thinking. We need to do the same for every key so that there are no grey areas on our neck. Then we are truly connected to our instrument and feel a sense of freedom from abstact patterns and distracting thoughts.

Andy










• Respond to this
Re: ok folks lets get down to it.
7/29/2005 4:13:17 AM
Fred Pool (114) wrote:
Jon, thanks for the positive points! I really appreciate the feedback and your concern for what you perceive it to be lacking. I would like to respond to these points you've proposed against my method. Before I do, I want to assure you that I am not here to cut you or anyone else down. I am simply after the truth if I can even get close to it.

First of all, you summed up what you thought of my approach based on a limited exposure to it. Right? You only had access to the first 3 items in my table of contents.

Your first point against me is based on the assumtion that I actually WANT a reference to "notes" as such. I don't. Your next point is that I have overlooked something elementary like the "C" in "major scale". Again, I didn't. My method is designed to eliminate as many confusing and unnecessary factors as possible. And it is possible to learn and teach a great deal without ever talking about notes. Now I imagine you're disagreeing with me right now. If so, then there's a great deal you can learn from me!!! : )

Moving on, you then said:
"One can come away with the idea that there are 100s of different scales. And we need to remember all of them!"
You're right! But, it's not patterns that inspire such misconception, it's what you are so proud of...notes! Please, hear me out. If I show you a list of the sets of notes for the major scale in every possible key it'll make you a little dizzy...especially a student who hasn't made the quantum leap to realize that it's all the same, just in different positions on the fret board. Right? I could list them for you, but even as I did, I'd be thinking "What a waste of time" because I know them all, and you know them all...so the only people who DON'T know them are the people who will only be confused by them. My way is to show students a single pattern and call it the major scale without the note name designation because the whole point is to teach them to play that same pattern in any position they desire.

So as I put it earlier, your quote about someone walking away with the impression that there are endless scales to memorize is more the fault of traditional teaching methods (note names) rather than studying patterns and moving them.

I hope you're still with me...it gets better! Your next point is that "Pattern-based learning without the notes is "blind" knowledge." I beg to differ. I could agree with :: Pattern-based learning without some frame of reference is blind knowledge. After all, that's what you're after when you praise the names of notes.

You think you see all the connections because of the names of the notes. But in reality, the name of a note at any given moment is arbitrary. It's the relationship of that note to the other notes and chords that actually matters. For example, why does that note sound so good with that chord? Because it's the 5th of the chord. It's not because it's an E#...change the key of the song and the celebrated E# sounds like crap. What the E# is to you and anyone else who needs note names is a location on the fret board. And depending on the circumstances, it's either a note to play or a note to avoid based on it's relationship to the scale/chords being played.

So, as I always like to say...it's all about geography. Jon, I'm pretty sure you are warning others away from mindlessly studying patterns because you feel that they will end up lost. I agree that they will be pretty lost if they don't have something to make those connections you talked about. I have devised a system to accomplish this. There was already a system (traditional note names) in place, but I find it more confusing than it needs to be for the guitar.

Here is my little metaphor for the effect studying note names has on the world of the fret board: Imagine a globe where when you give it a spin, the latitude and longitude lines don't spin with it. Think about it! It's so true!!! Play in one key and England (Cmaj) sits right on the prime meridian...change keys and now England is in another hemisphere! You can still find your way around, but it's not very efficient. After a while the whole world would be avoiding those "number names" and figuring a different way.

How about like this: You close your eyes, I spin the globe and you poke at it to bring it to a stop. You open your eyes and find your index finger resting on China. You know where England is and you wouldn't have to think about those silly numbers to find it.

Two methods can accomplish the same thing...but one can be so much more efficient than the other. Take the Metric vs. the English system. When I was a kid, I agreed with my good old grandpa. That metric stuff was for the birds! I had summed up what I thought of that approach based on a limited exposure to it. Yeah, that was a mistake. The metric system is WAY more efficient than the English system. My grandpa didn't like it, but he just really didn't know what he was talking about.

Stay with me Jon : )

Later you said that you had some major scale theory under your belt...but that the:
"...when I was quite an experienced player (and the dreaded modes came some years after that )."
What perplexes me is that you considered yourself an experienced player, yet the modes came later for you. How on earth could the modes be some "different" thing for you to learn? They ARE the major scale! It's like, someone gave the globe half a turn and you jumped up like Columbus discovered the New World! : ) Sorry...I couldn't help it! You know what I'm talking about, too...it's the claim that:
"One can come away with the idea that there are 100s of different scales. And we need to remember all of them!"
That confusion belongs to your kind...not mine.

For example, the guy who replied to your post agree with you, but then went on to say how at one time he was weak in the key of Eb? This just illustrates my point. There's a confusion that the "note-names" method lends itself to.

I don't "blindly" study patterns. My knowledge of them is not "empty". My whole motivation for devising a new system is because I have seen the confusion the one you hold so high can create. Trust me, my first efforts at teaching were entirely traditional. After a while I felt like I was beating my head and all of my student's heads on a wall, over and over. You have no idea how much time and thought has gone into this method. I wouldn't commit myself to such torture if it weren't necessary.

No system is perfect, and I search mine for flaws daily. I'm just positive it has to have some kind of flaw...but, I can't seem to find it...you certainly haven't found it...and the efficiency of it just keeps pushing me further and further into the deep. Yeah, you're probably thinking "the deep end" : ) but you don't really know...You haven't seen the whole picture I'm painting.

What the traditional note naming method has to offer is a way for all instruments to share the same geographical reference. We will always need it for at least that. If it were a doctor, it would be a general practitioner...someone for everyone to go see. If I were a doctor, I'd be the guitarist's doctor...someone who specializes and knows secrets that don't exactly work or matter to the Tuba player.

Latter in your post you said:
"You say your concept is "a visual geography that's more like what goes through a guitarist's mind when they are playing". Maybe. It's not exactly what goes through my mind. "
I want you to notice something subtle, but important. I said it's "...more like what goes through a guitarist's mind..." You quoted me to reject the idea, saying "Maybe. It's not exactly what goes through my mind." The key word here is "exactly". I didn't say exactly. That was another of my subtle, yet meaningful omissions...much like my leaving out the "C" in "major scale" and all other notes for that matter.

You also said..."Why don't people just learn the notes! " I'd like to point out another simple point. Whether you study the geography of music Jon's way or my way, you're still studying patterns. There's a music theory you'll learn eventually by reading music on paper. You'll study the patterns they make on the page, you'll eventually realize that certain something that overshadows all music...Then you'll have to translate it to the fret board.

Man, I'd hate to see what goes through Jon's head when he does a run from one end of the fret board to the other. (No wonder he makes that funny face...just kidding Jon! : ) Yeah, it'd be like...okay, I'm about to make my run...I'm waiting for the right moment...OKAY! G#, A#, B, D, D#, E, G, ...(okay, wait...what's the next note?...now, let's see...hmmm...my mentor told me I was free from pattern learning and that everything would just fall into place if I just think about the notes...okay...I'll try) G#, A#, B, D, D#, E, G,...(hey, that's seemed familiar...naw...must be dejavu!...now, let me get back to my solo...the audience is looking like their worried about me...is that big vein on my forhead bulging out again!?!...oh, man, what's the next note????? : ) Man, I'm sorry...I hope you're not mad...I hope you're not a really big, mean, death metal guy! I should have read your profile first! Naw, dude, it's all in good fun. I haven't felt like this since I slapped that beehive (the size of my head) in 3rd grade...

: ) You know, I may be going off a bit much here...but it's like, right now you represent every skeptic I've ever met in the many years I've been teaching this stuff. I hope you can understand my defense...it's like you saw half a photo of my 4 year old daughter and summed her up not very favorably. I also feel like the few compliments you threw my way were just distractions to keep me reading while you got down to what you really meant to tell me.

So, where was I? Oh yeah, I like the part where I was thinking for you...trying to play the Hungarian minor scale in G# in front of a live studio audience...and trying to name all the notes as they speed through your head. That part was probably my favorite part! I hope you have funny stuff like that to say about me! That'd be really funny! I promise I won't get mad...at all. : )

One thing though, Jon, it took me so many days just to find the time to respond to your accusations...I sure hope I can find the time to do this again soon...if need be. I don't want to let you down if you respond right away and you don't hear from me for days and days. Just know that it's all cool and that eventually I'll get back to you. Keep in touch!
Fred










• Respond to this
Re: ok folks lets get down to it.
7/29/2005 7:54:47 AM
Christian Miller (1915) wrote:
Giggle. LOL.

Yes - there's a limit to how much processing one brain can do - even the formidable mind possessed by the redoubtable Mr Riley. My ZX Brain 48K can't really cope with much, so I've stopped worrying about it.












• Respond to this
Re: ok folks lets get down to it.
8/2/2005 7:19:05 PM
Fred Pool (114) wrote:
Thanks Christian! I'm glad someone got a laugh out of it...I know I had fun writing! And, not at the expense of Jon...it seems he's a really level-headed intelligent, respectable guy. I like that!










• Respond to this
Re: ok folks lets get down to it.
7/29/2005 9:20:58 AM
Jon Riley (9026) wrote:
Whew! long post! I'll try and respond where I think it helps (or where I think you misunderstood me):

"And it is possible to learn and teach a great deal without ever talking about notes. Now I imagine you're disagreeing with me right now. If so, then there's a great deal you can learn from me!!! : )"

Well, I don't disagree, exactly. I just think I'd find it hard to teach without using note names.
What do you call chords? If you call them "C" "G" etc, how do explain why two different shapes can have the same name, and the same shape in a different position has a different name?
What names do you give your patterns?


"If I show you a list of the sets of notes for the major scale in every possible key it'll make you a little dizzy...especially a student who hasn't made the quantum leap to realize that it's all the same, just in different positions on the fret board. Right?

Not necessarily. It's a matter of separating the stuff into "music" (the notes and scales) and the "method of producing the music on your instrument" (note positions and patterns).

The cycle of 5ths is an essential tool here for understanding keys. All those different notes in the different scales is certainly a ton of information to expect a beginner to remember - and I wouldn't expect or teach that.
What I would teach is the method of working it out, understanding it, which is pretty simple. (OK, this is a "pattern", sure, but it's a musically meaningful pattern.)
I teach the C major scale, and the major scale formula - half-step between B-C and E-F, whole steps everywhere else.
The cycle of 5ths then shows that you can get other major keys by just altering one note at a time (starting on the 5th, then raising the 7th of that scale; or starting on the 4th and lowering the 4th of that scale - might sound confusing in words, but it's easy to illustrate:-))
Alternatively, you can work from the W-W-H-W-W-W-H formula, start on any note, and make sure you have one of each note letter in your scale.

Applying it to the fretboard, I would show how the formula works up one string (Frets 0-2-4-5-7-9-11-12). I also lay out the C major scale pattern in open position.
(I teach notation as well as tab, by the way.)

This might sound complicated, but I guess my view is that learning different major scales on the fretboard, in different positions, is not important for a beginner anyway. What's important is getting used to how keys work, beginning with chords in easy keys like C, G, D or A, all in open position, and picking up scale knowledge associated with that. Learning to strum chord sequences and getting a sense of rhythm has to precede learning solo improvisation - which is only where scale patterns up the neck become useful.

I'd agree that many different methods (including pattern-centred approaches) are useful, because people learn in different ways.
E.g., learning the notes might take a back seat, if I was to teach improvisation from chord shapes: learning arpeggios in different positions, and learning what extra notes you can add. This doesn't require knowing the note names, only their positions relative to the chord shape.
But learning the notes provides the final essential information that enables you to link up chords and notes in different places.
Even for a learner who is fixated on patterns, the note names (like chord names) have to be useful labels, right?


So as I put it earlier, your quote about someone walking away with the impression that there are endless scales to memorize is more the fault of traditional teaching methods (note names) rather than studying patterns and moving them.

Not at all. There are 12 major scales, of which only about 5 or 6 are in regular use in popular guitar music. Doesn't sound like too much to me!
That idea of people thinking there ae endless scales to learn

Every major scale has the same pattern, of course. And every scale runs all over the neck.
If we know the C major scale (right up the neck), and we know major scale theory (WWHWWWH, one of each note) it's a doddle to work out any major scale you choose, and also to plot out any pattern you like.
IOW, you create your own patterns from musical knowledge, rather than vice versa: learning patterns as patterns, then learning how and when to apply which ones where - which is what seems complicated or confusing to me.
The basic knowledge you need for the former method (learning the fretboard, as well as basic major scale theory) make take longer than memorising patterns - although I wouldn't bet on it - but it's much more useful knowledge, musically. Once you have that, learning everything else is easy and fast.

"the relationship of that note to the other notes and chords that actually matters. For example, why does that note sound so good with that chord? Because it's the 5th of the chord."

We're in total agreement here! (See my comment above about improvising off chord shapes.)

Your globe metaphor is interesting - but I think it works against you. The country names are equivalent to the note names. Supposing the globe just had the shapes and lines, and no country names. You'd be working in patterns, right? This funny-shaped blob here is in THIS kind of relationship with that funny-shaped blob over there; etc. That's what a purely pattern-based method is like. Isn't it easier if we name the countries?
They're only labels - but labels are useful.

What perplexes me is that you considered yourself an experienced player, yet the modes came later for you.

Nobody in jazz ever heard of modes until the late 50s. Didn't seem to inhibit Duke Ellington or Charlie Parker too much... Would you say they were not "experienced" players?
In rock in the 60s, nobody knew anything about modes. Were Hendrix, Clapton or Page bothered?

I agree that modes are (in one sense) just different names for what musicians had always been doing. Those musicians knew the "globe" very well. All the modes amounted to was new names for old countries - or new ways of looking at the old countries. Pardon me for not being impressed!

Of course, as TONALITIES, modes do have new sounds to offer, different from keys (or at least new ways of analysing old sounds). But that's not how they're normally treated on guitar tuition sites.


Obviously, I was criticising only part of your site and methods. I accept there's more to it, and that you've worked all this stuff out from experience with students.
But - just as you see me as a typical "skeptic" stuck in the past - I see you as a typical experimenter/inventor. Nothing wrong with that - I'm all for originality, improvement, overturning dusty old methods where necessary. But I say: if it ain't broke, don't fix it! (Clearly, we're going to disagree about whether "it" is "broke" or not...)
I'm only saying I've never had any problem myself with the traditional methods - either understanding or playing music using them. It's only with hindsight that I look back and say "hey, that weird stuff worked!" The more I work with those methods, the more elegant and useful they appear.
And I DO see a lot of confusion on boards like this from beginners who are learning from patterns alone, trying to understand which pattern to apply where, getting confused about the difference between a "scale" and a "scale pattern" (they think "A aeolian" is different from "D dorian", eg), not getting the link between keys, chords and scales.
I do accept that this isn't a problem caused by pattern-learning per se - only with the absence of reference points, of which the most obvious is note names (whether applied to chords, keys or scales).

It's true that I had similar problems to Andy when exploring the more remote flat keys in jazz - and that thinking in chord shapes (away from note names) helped. We guitarists are lucky in that respect: the key of Gb is no harder to play than the key of G - UNLESS you think in note names! (So I agree with you there.)
But you're misinterpreting me if you think I think in notes all the time. I don't choose notes (by name) when I play. I choose chord extensions, and build melodic phrases. But I am aware of note/scale/chord/key relationships all the time. I find that much more preferable to just letting my fingers go on some scale pattern that I know will fit. That's the other problem with pattern learning: it can encourage random improvisation. "I know this box pattern fits; so I can just play anything, it will sound OK."

What matters (as you say) is the relationship of each note to the chord or key context. That's a question of SOUND, of course. How we get to the point where we know the SOUND of each note in various contexts is not important as long as we get there.
I find it intuitive and natural to label the sounds with note names, AS WELL AS to know visual patterns of how they fit with chords in various places.
At the very least, note names are useful when WRITING. A lot of musical information needs to be written down, even in personal teaching. Note names are the basic language we use.

There's probably not a huge amount of disagreement between us. I use patterns myself, and think less in note names than you imagine. And I was probably making unfair assumptions about you based on comparison with similar methods I've seen.

JonR










• Respond to this
Re: ok folks lets get down to it.
7/29/2005 4:09:36 PM
Christian Miller (1915) wrote:
Gosh. well put.

The question that intrigues me is - if jazz musicians weren't
conciously using modes until the '50s but their solos can be
analysed in someway modal (as George Russell believed) are they
using modes? I would say not, but other people differ.

The question is important to me, because for me - and sorry to
quote the Matrix - walking the path is not the same as knowing the
path.












• Respond to this
Re: ok folks lets get down to it.
8/8/2005 2:31:48 PM
Jon Riley (9026) wrote:
Thing is, this theory/analysis game is not dependent on what musicians themselves actually know or think about. After all, we can analyse some primitive folk music using European academic terms - we don't expect the musicians themselves to understand it that way!
We have to use a language that explains it for US - not the language they use, that explains it for them. (Their own concepts may well be illuminating, but we'd still feel a need to relate them to a system we know.)

Question is - how useful is it (to theorists or student musicians) to use a particular theoretical system?
It's possible to apply all kinds of analytical methods to any piece of music. Does it matter if the musicians themselves understand what we are talking about or not? From one angle, no. Depends, I guess, on whether the way they understand their music is accessible to us.

Does a modal language help in understanding pre-1960s jazz? I don't believe so. (Unless - IMO - you regard blues as modal music...)
OTOH, I've found modal concepts useful in analysing the Beatles' music - and they knew precious little about traditional music theory, never mind anything as fancy as modes.
John Lennon certainly "used" mixolydian mode, as if he knew what it was - although the term would have been a hilarious piece of gobbledegook to him. Would it help us to know what he was thinking, where he got it from and what he called it - if anything?
Or is it enough (or in fact helpful anyway) to say "ah yes, that's mixolydian mode, interesting" - ?

All I know about George Russell is his controversal "lydian chromatic concept"... and that his ideas did go on to inspire people like Miles Davis and John Coltrane to experiment, and make a different kind of music. Jazz that is consciously modal (post-1959) is very different from previous kinds of jazz.

Jazz - unlike rock - does tend to be made by musically educated people who know some theory, and are interested in the underlying grammar of the language they use. Miles and Trane were keen on pushing boundaries, and Russell shone a light down a particular path - a path they might have found anyway, but perhaps not so quickly or confidently.
At the same time, of course, the sounds were paramount, and the jargon is only labels. Once they started down that path, they'd find their own way.
Miles - at least - had many other influences on his move away from key-based music: Bill Evans's quartal ideas, African music, etc.










• Respond to this
Re: ok folks lets get down to it.
8/8/2005 3:13:59 AM
Fred Pool (114) wrote:
Alright Jon, I'm back! Thanks for hearing me out on my long post and for tolerating my jabs. As I said, I don't mean to offend anyone in any way. I'm more interested in figuring out the truth if it can be found...and it looks like you're one of those types too. If so, I really, really appreciate that about you. So many people just want to argue and try to sound smart when they may or may not really know what's going on. I also appreciate the reconsideration you seem to have given me in your reply.

Further, I appreciate that you spend the time that you do, sharing your knowledge with others here.

I would agree with you that there ISN'T a whole lot of disagreement between us. I think we're looking at the same photo, we're just describing it in different ways.

I understand that there are others out there who have pattern based learning methods. I don't know many and I don't know how they go about it, but I do know that without certain careful considerations one can create a system that creates more shortcomings than shortcuts. I understand your cautious minded comments. I have tiptoed my way through my development with exactly that kind of mind. The last thing I want to find is that I have created a dead-end road.

It's funny, because we're arguing about naming things...and you probably have the impression that I am all about abandoning names all together. The reason I find that so interesting is that at the fundamental level...the whole power of my method IS the names. I just use different names as a matter of efficiency.

You talked about some of the concepts sounding a bit confusing in words but being much easier to illustrate. I agree wholeheartedly. That's why my approach is so visual. You know, I often think about the fact that reading music is a visual experience from which you can learn music theory...so why not figure out a way to teach that visual experience from the fret board? The same musical phenomena appear in their own way right there on the neck of the guitar.

You said:
"Your globe metaphor is interesting - but I think it works against you." I suppose it depends on what you're trying to use it to explain, right? I didn't get the impression that you understood the purpose of the globe metaphor. I whipped up that metaphor to explain a problem I saw with the way the note names (which are static/don't move) are used to define the pattern (which is dynamic/moves). That would be like having a globe where the latitude and longitude lines stay still when you spin it. It would be better to have a system where the defining coordinates move with what they define...no matter where the "countries" go. (Which IS what happens on a real globe...BECAUSE it would be such a problem to do it the other way.)

So, my question for all the gurus out there is this: Is there a system out there where a given position in the scale always has the same name? For example, if you use note names for the major scale: CDEFGAB Yet, the same scale in a different position looks like this: ABC#DEF#G# There you have my problem. Someone who doesn't know note names would think 2 very different scales must be being played. If you use (how do you spell these critters?) do ra me fa so la ti do (solfetch?) Then someone goes to teach you the minor scale and they give you do ra MAY (to sound like a half-step)...already, not the same! Why didn't they say this for the minor scale: la ti do ra me fa so ? That way, the intervals relative to the scale, regardless of position on the fretboard, would always have the same name.

Are you understanding what I'm driving at here?

Someone once tried to tell me that there was already a system that accomplished what mine has to offer. I don't know the actual name..."The International Numbering System" ??? We have all used and heard of it. Like when you tell your friend, "That's a I-IV-V or a II-V-I. Whatever that system is called. Well, that doesn't quite cut it either...not for what I'm after. It's a little closer, but...It's the same deal here. A II-V-I in one key is different from a II-V-I in another. If it were like what I use, then someone could just point to a single fret on the guitar and say "II" and I would know the entire solo map, and all the naturally occuring chords that go with it.

What's even closer to what I am doing is if someone pointed to a single note and said "Lydian". That would tell me a lot! From that one piece of information I would know the entire solo map, as well as all the chords that go with it. But hardly anyone labels their chords that way. It's too bad...because so much information is all packaged up in that one little name. No matter where Lydian goes, everything else moves with it.

That's something like what I use. (You asked what I call chords.) My system is based more on that kind of thinking.

Sorry it took so long to respond...I'm having a busy life right now. : )

Fred










• Respond to this
Re: ok folks lets get down to it.
8/8/2005 2:58:10 PM
Jon Riley (9026) wrote:
I think the problem we're both (in fact all of us are!) trying to tackle is that any note, scale or chord has different uses in different contexts.
No single naming system is fixed.
The C major scale is different from A major - but the same in another way.
The A minor scale is different from the C major scale - but the same in another way.
There are several patterns for the C major scale - all different (positions), but also all the same (notes).
A particular fret on the fretboard is C# sometimes - Db other times. It might be the 3rd of A major, 5th of Gb major, 7th of Eb7, etc, etc.

If you make that note/fret the root of something - sure, you have a temporarily fixed point. E.g., your "lydian" example. But how useful - in a real music situation - is that example of "pointing to a single note"?
E.g., if I saw a Cmaj7#11 chord on a chart, I know that's a lydian chord, and it takes (what I call) the G major scale. I know I can play that anywhere on the neck, in any pattern I choose. I don't have to find a "lydian" pattern (no such thing). I would use patterns to help me, of course: chord shapes. And not only Cmaj7#11 shapes, but Gmaj7, D and Bm7 (in their various voicings), to give me those upper extensions.
None of this is dependent on one position on the fretboard. Patterns help me - all the relevant interval patterns especially - and I think that goes hand-in-hand with note knowledge. Eg "this note sounds good because it's the 9th, D - and there's another D here if I want it, and I can move to the F#/#11 easily too..." (This is a kind of drawn-out translation of a split-second series of decisions.)

I think what I get twitchy about is the confusion many people get into about apparent (but non-existent) links between a visual pattern on the fretboard, and a chord/scale sound. They think that a "lydian" chord requires a "lydian scale pattern", which can only exist in one incarnation on the neck.
This confusion obviously arises from the silly practice of naming a fret pattern as "lydian" in the first place.

I assume, from your thoughtful replies, that this is not a trap your system falls into!

JonR