C-a-g-e-d

[Kinoble]

Hi guys,

Just like some opinions on Caged system.

I am a guitar teacher, but have never learned the caged system and am comfortable with my own methods.

Who uses this system and would it be worth me learning it-it seems ALOT of work!

Looking forward to your views,

-Ben

[JonR]

I like it because it is simply the way the guitar neck is.
I like the fact that you learn chord shapes, and THEN learn scales and how they fit the chords.
I never learned CAGED myself, but when I discovered it (as a concept in the public domain) it made perfect sense, because it was how I understood the guitar neck already, from experience and self-teaching. I didn't realise it was a "system" or "method" - it's like: that's just the way it is!

I'm now a guitar teacher, but I don't focus on CAGED specifically. It takes a while before students are ready to explore the neck. I think it's most important to learn open position chords and scales, and how keys work.
CAGED only becomes useful and important when one is familiar not only with the open position chord shapes (duh!) but also with how those major scales fit around each shape. It's important to associate the C, G, D, A and E major scales - as open position patterns - with those major chords, to understand scale degrees, root sounds, etc., even the arpeggios of other chords in the same key (within the same pattern).
(I also think the F and Bb major scales are useful, because it's often easier to think of the "E" and "A" shapes as "F" and "Bb" respectively. When translated into movable patterns, the F and Bb scales involve less stretching.)

When a student has all that under their belt, they're ready to take the shapes and patterns up the neck, and apply them in any key. The CAGED principle is the most natural way to do that, IMO.

Of course, you can learn the notes on the neck too, but they all end up falling into the CAGED patterns anyway.

I think it is possible - as with any "system" - to oversell it. It's only a tool, a means to an end; as long as you keep the end in sight (understanding scale/chord/key relationships, as well as learning the neck).

[gennation]

It great for learning the logistics of the fretboard.

One can go from understanding/memorizing open chords into tackling barre chords and chord movement fairly easy.

The thing is, is that once it starts to click that's when you'll see how useful it is.

I tell my students it's as simple as learning/playing the open chord, because it is.

Here's a tutorial I did on it...check it out...

-----------------------------------------

This is something I need to do a full-blown tutorial on, because I haven't found anything on the Internet that I think REALLY explains it and it's application.

Basically, you take the open chord formations, the cowboy chords, and string them together to show you ONE chord up and down the fretboard.

The chord formations ALWAYS repeat themselves and NEVER change as far as the fretboard is concerned.

Each open chord is a "Position" or a "Formation". They will ALWAYS go in the order of C, A, G, E, D...then would repeat themselves...C, A, G, E, D, C, A, G, E, D, C, A, G, E, D....and so on...

So, take an Open C chord....this looks like the the open C chord "formation"...

C

E--0--
B--1--
G--0--
D--2--
A--3--
E--x--

If we think of CAGED as a static pattern, and each of of the Open Chord Formation relating to the letters in CAGED...we've all ready cover C in Caged. THe next formation wil be A. The next C chord formation we'll find is the "A Formation"...

C

E--3--
B--5--
G--5--
D--5--
A--3--
E--x--

So, that's a C chord, but it's a C chord that looks EXACTLY like the Open A chords does...

So for a C chord...we've played it "shaped" as a open C chord AND an open A chord...but both were C chords.

The next letter in CAGED is G...caGed...

C

E--8--
B--5--
G--5--
D--5--
A--7--
E--8--

Can you see how that C chord looks EXACTLY like a G Formation?

And to answer your next question, YES...people do use this chord. Even more people (Hendrix, Richards, Vai, and about every other guitarist) will use fragments of it.

Hopefully by now you're seeing that CAGED relates to a constant sequence of familiar open chord formations.

The next letter is E...so, here's a C chord that looks like an E chord...

C

E--8--
B--8--
G--9--
D--10--
A--10--
E--8--

Ok, that's C chord, but it looks EXACTLY like an open E chord formation.

The next letter is D...

C

E--12--
B--13--
G--12--
D--10--
A--10--
E--x--

Can you see how that's a C chord, but it looks EXACTLY like an open D chord?

Now here's where it'll start to repeat, starting on C again...

C

E--12--
B--13--
G--12--
D--14--
A--15--
E--x--

See how that's a C chord...and loks EXACTLY like the open C chord was started with?

Now things repeatcontinuing on to A, G, E, D...

C (in athe A foromation)

E--15--
B--17--
G--17--
D--17--
A--15--
E--x--

C (looks like a G formation chord)

E--20--
B--17--
G--17--
D--17--
A--19--
E--20--


So, you can see that by learning CAGED you can start unlocking the fretboard.

Because it's a static sequence, you can start ANYWHERE in the sequence and by knowing the formation you're playing you'll be able to find the same chord above and below itself!

Take an E chord in an A Formation:

E

E--7--
B--9--
G--9--
D--9--
A--7--
E--x--

By knowing CAGED you would know there is an E chord in the shape of a G chord above your chord, and an E chord in the shape of a C chord...

E (in a G formation)

E--12--
B--9--
G--9--
D--9--
A--10--
E--12--

E (in a C formation)

E--4--
B--5--
G--4--
D--6--
A--7--
E--x--

Hopefully all of that makes sense. If so, by the end of the day you are going know a lot more about how the fretboard is organized.

Now this also applies to scales and connecting them up the fretboard...I don't have time to go into that right now. But, try and visualize your scale patterns and find the different chords in them, it'll become clear before long that all of the scales connect using the CAGED concept.

A book that deals directly with CAGED is: Fretboard Logic. It is a great book, although I think it could be organized a little better.

Also, stop by my lesson site (link below). I take a lot of "must know" concepts and explain them thoroughly in detail.


--------------------------------------------------------

This is a fretboard diagram representation of the C Major chord and the CAGED formations used to map it across the fretboard. A picture is worth a thousand words when it comes to CAGED, plus you can see how it starts over at the C Form again and continues with C->A->G, etc..

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a344/gennation/Music/FretboardDiagram-CAGED-Image.jpg

As you learn more about CAGED you'll find that you can relate scales and arpeggio's to it to, but...

The premise of CAGED is Chord Forms. So, make sure you understand the Chord Form relations of CAGED prior to finding the scales in the forms. After you understand how the chords are glued together, check out other material (I hope to have some together soon) to see how the fundamentals of CAGED can turn into to even a bigger tool when applying Scale Forms and Arpeggio's to it.

I also suggest that YOU draw up a fretboard diagram and start drawing them yourself, connecting the chords. This is a 100% way of getting the pictures firmer in your mind. This is way you'll see the how everything is related and how it lays across the fretboard in memory and under your fingertips.

[Kinoble]

Thanks guys.

I understand the basis of it, but relating it to scale shapes is where i have the problem-it seems like a HUGE amount to memorize, and very hard to do in different keys. Do you beg to differ?

[Malcolm]

I have a problem relating this to scales myself, I think it's a stretch and there are many other easier ways to introduce scales to a student. However, if you have a student that is having problems with barre, CAGED is five more ways of making that barre. Forget theory think mechanics.

Perhaps he/she will like the A pattern over the E pattern, etc. I think of them as modified barre positions. In fact I had a problem with barre myself, because of hand size, so I just jumped over barre and went direct to CAGED. I use the A E and D pattern (mostly E and A a friend uses mostly D for all his chord work) my point --- teach the pattern that works for your student.

When you take a student to barre you are introducing them to movable chord patterns, I think CAGED is an easier system. The student need not use or learn all five patterns, just pick one or two that are easy for them.

[gennation]

Just look at each of those CAGED formed C chord in that diagram...then draw the C Major scale tones for each. You'll see it pretty easily then I think.

I had figured this out on my own when I was a kid in the 70's, years before ever being told about it. I think the first time I ever heard it termed CAGED, or anything, was on a Joe Pass lesson video in the mid-80's.

Really though, chord wise, unless you're James Taylor or use a capo for everything, some of the chords aren't worth playing as much as the knowledge they give about the fretboard.

Most people use the chord fragments more than anything. It's the fragments that make certain things come alive on the fretboard musically more than the knowledge of them.

[Chim_Chim]

Really though, chord wise, unless you're James Taylor or use a capo for everything, some of the chords aren't worth playing as much as the knowledge they give about the fretboard. Yeah some forms aren't the greatest in terms of chord shapes but they're still useful in locating all of the chord tones within the scale patterns.

[dmsstudios]

I also discovered CAGED long after I had learned it in other terms, but its a cool little word, except, it should be CAGE. The D is redundant of the C.

D and C are the same, otherwise, CAGE is a fun little thing to teach, but by no means necessary to learn. It'll reveal itself in other ways.

[Jed]

Thanks guys.

I understand the basis of it, but relating it to scale shapes is where i have the problem-it seems like a HUGE amount to memorize, and very hard to do in different keys. Do you beg to differ?

My problem is that each chord form maps to multiple scale forms. I don't see the point of naming one of three (or four) potential scale forms according to one of the multiple chord forms that map to that form.

The attached pdf shows the CAGED scale forms in the first column with the chord form in bold text. The second, third, fourth and fifth columns show various positional scales forms that feature the same chord shape (in various keys). Note that any one chord form could have been used to name any one of three (or four) scale forms. It's more than a bit arbitrary to name the scale forms in this way.

cheers,

[ChrisJ]

There is many opinions on the CAGED system, and confusion on what it is exactly. I think that more so than it being based off of the open position cowboy chords, it is wiser to relate the system to the octave shapes.

As an example, the C-Form (Roots on 5th and 2nd string shape) is also known as pattern one in many institutions. Therefore the major scale that has the root on the 5th string, and is played with your pinky is known as major scale pattern 1. The minor scale that starts with your pinky on the 5th string is also known as minor scale pattern 1, etc. If you understand where all the intervals are in relation to the octave shape, you can build any chord or scale if you understand the intervals inherant of the scale or chord in question.

dmsstudios: The D shape is different from the C shape as the C shape has its octaves on the 5th and 2nd string, the D shape has its octaves on the 4th and 2nd strings. The major scale corresponding to the C-Form would be pattern 1 and the D-Form would be pattern 5 (4th string root).

I think this is a great system for beginners but can be constraining for more experienced players as there are chords and scales that stretch out of the octave system. I recently did a lesson on this subject:

http://chrisjuergensen.com.hosting.domaindirect.com/thinking_out_of_the_cage.htm

-CJ

[Jed]

There is many opinions on the CAGED system, and confusion on what it is exactly. I think that more so than it being based off of the open position cowboy chords, it is wiser to relate the system to the octave shapes.

Chris,

With all due respect, basing the CAGED system on octaves shapes is even more arbitrary than basing it on major triad chord shapes. Each CAGED scale pattern contains every octave shape (different roots) and multiples of many octave shapes. So any of the CAGED scale patterns could be named for any of the 7 natural notes.

I read you article and agree completely that CAGED isn't a bad place to start. But it seems sometimes that a cult has developed around the CAGED system, trying to make it into something more than it is . . . an easy way to see more of the fretboard. But it's just a first glimpse, a longer gaze reveals exponentially more options.

If people are ever going to learn to become self-sufficient, they gonna have to learn how to fish. CAGED is often little more than a minor extension of the concept of learning one or two chord voicings and thinking that we "know" a chord.

On the other hand maybe I've just been watching too many Ted Greene videos on YouTube. ;)

Ultimately IMO, the CAGED system is about major triad voicings more so than scale forms. But even at that, it only covers a small subset of moveable major triad voicings based on the "Cowboy Chords".

Moveable triad voicings with the "CAGED system" names
E | |1| | | | | |3| | | | | |3| | | | |5| | | | | | | | | |1|
B | |5| | | | | | |1| | | | | |1| | | | | |3| | | | |3| | |-|
G | | |3| | | | |5| | | | | |5| | | | | | |1| | | | |1| | | |
D | | | |1| |1| | | |-| | | | | |3| | | | |5| | | | |5| | | |
A |-| | |5| |x| | | | | |-| | | | |1| |1| | | | |-| | | |3| |
E | |1| | | | | |x| | | | | | | | |-| |-| | | | | | | | | |1|
E Form D Form C Form A Form G Form

Looking at things from a different angle, there are many more and more useful major triad voicings to be found. The following forms are only an example of a more systematic approach to exploring possible major triad voicings on limited string sets. There are, as you know, many more possibilities.

Major Triad 4-note voicings on DGBE strings
E | | | |1| | |1| | | | | |3| | |3| | | | | |5| | | |5| | |
B | | | |5| | |5| | | | | | |1| | |1| | | | | | |3| | | |3|
G | | | | |3| | |3| | | | |5| | |5| | | | | | | |1| | | |1|
D |5| | | | | | | |1| |1| | | | | | |3| |3| | | | | | | |5|
A | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
E | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Major Triad 4-note voicings on ADGB strings
E | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
B | |5| | | |5| | | | | | |1| | | |1| | | | | |3| |3| | |
G | | |3| | | |3| | | | |5| | | |5| | | | | | |1| |1| | |
D | | | |1| | | |1| |-| | | |3| | | |3| | | | |5| |5| | |
A |3| | | | | | |5| |5| | | | | | | | |1| |1| | | | | |3|
E | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

There's nothing wrong with CAGED as far as it goes, with the exception of the silly way it "names" scales forms according to arbitrary chord form choices. But CAGED isn't something worth hanging one's hat on for very long. There's a whole lot more to explore . . . .

cheers,

Jed

[ChrisJ]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the caged system is the only way to see things although it is pretty logical (obviously as you looked at my lesson, you know I feel we all need to break out of this system one day).

The argument for the system would be that the octave shapes are inherent regarding the structure of the guitar. And that is why it is not really the cowboy chords but the octaves that are the point. The triads you drew are almost all from the caged system.

-CJ

[Crossroads]

Personally I found the CAGED diagrams confusing, and I really didn't see the point of them.

I now think that the point of those diagrams is really just to emphasise the Triad chord shapes within each scale pattern. And the value of that, is simply to make improvising easier if you are trying to solo mainly by targeting chord tones.

Other than that I don't really see the value of CAGED.

In respect of learning chords - I think is far clearer to tell beginners to first learn the open chord shapes. Then progress to barre chords & note how they are using the same shapes as those open chords, but just with a barre making the chords moveable. And then finally, look again at each of those chords in terms of the intervals between each of their notes, ie notice the patterns those intervals make on the fretboard. So no CAGED involved at all there.

Again, I think it's obviously easier to learn the scale patterns without any reference to CAGED.

And if you want to understand the scale patterns in greater depth, then the next step is to again recognise the intervals between each of the notes (and notice how that corresponds to the interval formulae which define each scale and mode). Recognise the geometric shapes that the intervals make on the fretboard (eg maj3rd, min3rd, p5th etc.), and recognise the sounds those intervals make.


When soloing, personally I've never found it necessary to hit specific chord tones. Just solo from the scale notes. You soon learn that some scale notes sound good to emphasise as starting notes or notes to end on against different chords, and you soon recognise that those are in fact usually the principal chord tones eg the root or 5th. But I haven't found it essential to be really strict about only targeting specific chord tones?

I'm just offering the above for discussion, and not saying I'm right - I'm saying this is the way I've approached it (teaching myself), and I wonder if guys like Jon, Chris and Jed would say I'm missing something vital here (which is entirely possible!) :rolleyes: .

Ian.



Ps:- incidentally, in Genations post, his diagram shows the movement of the C root note going up the neck in octaves. This is what I suggested in another current thread as an easy means of learning all the notes on the fretboard quickly. Ie, the diagram shows the note C moving up the neck in octaves - it has a very characteristic zig-zag shape which is easy to memorise. It is of course exactly the same zig-zag shape for any note going up the neck in octaves (not just for C).

[JonR]

With all due respect, basing the CAGED system on octaves shapes is even more arbitrary than basing it on major triad chord shapes. Each CAGED scale pattern contains every octave shape (different roots) and multiples of many octave shapes. So any of the CAGED scale patterns could be named for any of the 7 natural notes.True. But for each CAGED shape there is only major scale pattern on the same root.
It's true that each CAGED chord shape will accommodate 3 major scales (aaagh, modes, let's not go there... :rolleyes: ).
More to the point, each CAGED scale pattern (as I think you're saying) contains 7 diatonic triad arpeggios within it. That becomes useful (IMO) once one has associated the 5 tonic major chord/scale relationships - in open position. You can then go on to point out that - in fact - all the chords in the key are there in the same pattern. (Incorporating, at least partially, the 3 familiar minor shapes too - see below.)
I read you article and agree completely that CAGED isn't a bad place to start. But it seems sometimes that a cult has developed around the CAGED system, trying to make it into something more than it is . . . an easy way to see more of the fretboard. But it's just a first glimpse, a longer gaze reveals exponentially more options.I'll take your word about the "cult". I've not seen evidence of that, but I'm sure many people try and sell it that way. People are always discovering things everyone else knows, and thinking they've found the magic solution!
On the other hand maybe I've just been watching too many Ted Greene videos on YouTube. ;) LOL...

Ultimately IMO, the CAGED system is about major triad voicings more so than scale forms. But even at that, it only covers a small subset of moveable major triad voicings based on the "Cowboy Chords".

Moveable triad voicings with the "CAGED system" names
E | |1| | | | | |3| | | | | |3| | | | |5| | | | | | | | | |1|
B | |5| | | | | | |1| | | | | |1| | | | | |3| | | | |3| | |-|
G | | |3| | | | |5| | | | | |5| | | | | | |1| | | | |1| | | |
D | | | |1| |1| | | |-| | | | | |3| | | | |5| | | | |5| | | |
A |-| | |5| |x| | | | | |-| | | | |1| |1| | | | |-| | | |3| |
E | |1| | | | | |x| | | | | | | | |-| |-| | | | | | | | | |1|
E Form D Form C Form A Form G Form

Looking at things from a different angle, there are many more and more useful major triad voicings to be found. The following forms are only an example of a more systematic approach to exploring possible major triad voicings on limited string sets. There are, as you know, many more possibilities.

Major Triad 4-note voicings on DGBE strings
E | | | |1| | |1| | | | | |3| | |3| | | | | |5| | | |5| | |
B | | | |5| | |5| | | | | | |1| | |1| | | | | | |3| | | |3|
G | | | | |3| | |3| | | | |5| | |5| | | | | | | |1| | | |1|
D |5| | | | | | | |1| |1| | | | | | |3| |3| | | | | | | |5|
A | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
E | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Major Triad 4-note voicings on ADGB strings
E | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
B | |5| | | |5| | | | | | |1| | | |1| | | | | |3| |3| | |
G | | |3| | | |3| | | | |5| | | |5| | | | | | |1| |1| | |
D | | | |1| | | |1| |-| | | |3| | | |3| | | | |5| |5| | |
A |3| | | | | | |5| |5| | | | | | | | |1| |1| | | | | |3|
E | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | But those are also all based on CAGED forms. At least the more playable/useful ones are:
Major Triad 4-note voicings on DGBE strings
E | | | |1| | |1| | | | | |3| | |3| | | | | |5| | | |5| | |
B | | | |5| | |5| | | | | | |1| | |1| | | | | | |3| | | |3|
G | | | | |3| | |3| | | | |5| | |5| | | | | | | |1| | | |1|
D |5| | | | | | | |1| |1| | | | | | |3| |3| | | | | | | |5|
A | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
E | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(X) E form E form D form C form (x) A form A form

Major Triad 4-note voicings on ADGB strings
E | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
B | |5| | | |5| | | | | | |1| | | |1| | | | | |3| |3| | |
G | | |3| | | |3| | | | |5| | | |5| | | | | | |1| |1| | |
D | | | |1| | | |1| |-| | | |3| | | |3| | | | |5| |5| | |
A |3| | | | | | |5| |5| | | | | | | | |1| |1| | | | | |3|
E | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
E form * E form (X) C form C form A form G form
* (X) marks the notes I think superfluous, or not a great deal of additional use. (Awkward stretches, to include a note you already have.)

The "E form" marked * is useful, OTOH, and I would often think of that myself as a partial "F" form - because the major pattern normally associated with that shape, if translated back to open position, gives you an F major scale:
E |7|1| |2|
B | |5| |6|
G |2| |3|4|
D |6| |7|1|
A |3|4| |5|
E |7|1| |2|This is - IMO - a slight flaw with the CAGED system. (As I said above, it's often useful to see the E and A forms as F and Bb, which rather messes up the neat 5-part "concept".)

However, my point here is that you can't escape the CAGED set of chord shapes. Any explanation of CAGED that excludes the 4-string voicings you list is an incomplete and unsatisfactory one.
Of course one should see that a major triad only needs 3 notes, and many 4-note partial shapes are handy. But those partial shapes - for major chords - can all be traced back to one of the CAGED patterns.

For minor chords, OTOH, there are 4-string partial shapes that don't relate so neatly to the 3 open minor chord shapes - because, of course, the minor counterpart to CAGED has 2 gaps: Cm and Gm. (We usually play those chords in Am or Em forms.)
Minor Triad 4-note voicings on DGBE strings
E | | | |1| | | | | |5| |3| | |
B | | | |5| | | |1| | | | | |1|
G | | | |3| | |5| | | | | |5| |
D |5| | | | | | |3| | | | | |3|
A | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
E | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Gm" form "Cm" form "Cm" form (but close to Dm)

Minor Triad 4-note voicings on ADGB and EADG strings
E | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
B | |1| | | | | | |5| | | | | |
G |5| | | | |1| | | | |1| | | |
D | |3| | | |5| | | | |5| | | |
A | | | |1| | |3| | | | |3| | |
E | | | | | | | | | | | | | |1|
"Cm" form "Gm" form "Gm" form

There's nothing wrong with CAGED as far as it goes, with the exception of the silly way it "names" scales forms according to arbitrary chord form choices.True. There's something unsatisfactory about a system that uses the name for one scale or chord to describe another. Eg, saying you can play a C major scale with an "E" shape or form.
But then what alternative do we have? (It's a similar problem to the issue of using mode names to identify scale patterns: the names don't correspond with the musical sounds or applications- except in one instance of each.)
Even the phrase "C major scale" is unsatisfactory if we want to only refer to the white notes of the piano - why should C be the root? But what else can we call them, without using one of the notes in the name? "White notes of the piano"? ;) OK, but what do we call the set of notes that make up the G major scale, if we don't want to infer a root note?

Of course, for scale patterns at least, we can use some numbering system ("1st position", etc). But there is more than one system in use employing numbers in mutually exclusive ways. It's still arbitrary which pattern we call "no.1". There's no agreed convention there - except the old one of usng "position" to mean fret number. But that system presupposes we know all our notes and patterns some other way.
Eg, I know what "C major 7th position" means. You put your index finger on 7th fret and play the other notes with your other fingers. But what other notes? We have to know where they are beforehand.

So CAGED is flawed. But its flaws are outweighed by its advantages. After all, all of us - after a few months of playing at most - irresistibly associate those chord shapes with their names, "C", "G", "D", "A", "E". We may as well exploit that association, even if it is arbitrary (the shapes have no musical meaning), and even if it requires an extra mental leap ("A "C" shape doesn't always produce a C sound...").

It doesn't do everything. It's not a final answer. But I don't know of a better system, that does as much as CAGED does.


Ultimately, of course, we need to know all our notes and our chord tones and scale degrees. That liberates us to some extent from thinking in patterns.
Or rather, we still think in patterns, but they are functional. We know what the root is, or the 3rd is, and how to find a 9th or whatever. We don't actually need the notes (other than a root) to do that, but it helps.

[ChrisJ]

There are always drawbacks to any system. I didn't learn guitar by understanding the caged system but I wish that I had. It is a very logical system and the student, by understanding the octave system and the intervals between can make any scale or chord if he/she understands the construction rules. I think it is not really correct to simply assume that the caged system is based on the cowboy chords. There are no fixed chord shapes but there are fixed octaves and intervals. Take a look at the few examples below. Think of any chord or scale and see if you can't make it. Granted there are chords that can be voiced to stretch out of the box. And that is what all musicians should eventually shoot for, but as far a intermediate students and logic goes, you can't really beat it:

[ChrisJ]

PS: it doesn't even have to be called the caged system by the way. I work at an institution that calls the previous octave shape: pattern 4 because it is the fourth C octave shape on the fretboard. Therefore all the chords and scales would not be called the E-Form C major scale or E-Form C major triad but C Major Pattern 4 scale and C Major Pattern 4 Triad, etc. You could call them Bob or Joe if it works for you but you can't change the layout of the guitar.

[JonR]

[size=2]Personally I found the CAGED diagrams confusing, and I really didn't see the point of them.

I now think that the point of those diagrams is really just to emphasise the Triad chord shapes within each scale pattern. And the value of that, is simply to make improvising easier if you are trying to solo mainly by targeting chord tones.

Other than that I don't really see the value of CAGED.

In respect of learning chords - I think is far clearer to tell beginners to first learn the open chord shapes. Then progress to barre chords & note how they are using the same shapes as those open chords, but just with a barre making the chords moveable. And then finally, look again at each of those chords in terms of the intervals between each of their notes, ie notice the patterns those intervals make on the fretboard. So no CAGED involved at all there.But that's exactly what the CAGED system means, as I understand it:
1. Learn the 5 basic open major chord shapes - C, A, G, E, D
2. Learn the major scales on each of those roots.
3. Then Learn how each shape can be converted into a movable barre chord, with the scale pattern attached.
(It obviously makes no sense to call it a "CAGED" system until one is used to thinking of the open position chord shapes with those names.)

A good step "2a" might be to learn the other chord arpeggios within each key. Some of these will also be CAGED shapes of course, some will be minors.
This knowledge is of course important once you play the patterns as movable patterns higher up the neck.
Again, I think it's obviously easier to learn the scale patterns without any reference to CAGED.I don't think so. I think it's a lot easier to learn chord shapes first (learning the 1-3-5 chord tones too), and then fill in the scale patterns around them.

I actually teach the C major scale (open position) first, but I link it with the C chord shape as soon as possible.
I teach the other open chords early on too - although I don't go on to teach the associated major scales right away. I work with songs in those keys first, so that chords and scale become associated that way.
And all in open position. I don't see any value in learning movable patterns until the concepts (chords, scales, keys, improvising ideas) are familiar in open position.
And if you want to understand the scale patterns in greater depth, then the next step is to again recognise the intervals between each of the notes (and notice how that corresponds to the interval formulae which define each scale and mode). Recognise the geometric shapes that the intervals make on the fretboard (eg maj3rd, min3rd, p5th etc.), and recognise the sounds those intervals make. I agree. But this can go hand in hand with the CAGED concept.
The CAGED "system" is simply using the shapes that are already there, that students who've been playing a few months at least should be familiar with.
I certainly wouldn't teach any such system without underlining the importance of intervals - that's fundamental. (It should go without saying, but I guess it doesn't! ;) )
The system is only a structure within which we can understand those musical values.
When soloing, personally I've never found it necessary to hit specific chord tones. Just solo from the scale notes. You soon learn that some scale notes sound good to emphasise as starting notes or notes to end on against different chords, and you soon recognise that those are in fact usually the principal chord tones eg the root or 5th. But I haven't found it essential to be really strict about only targeting specific chord tones?It's not a question of being strict. But as you say, you "soon learn" about the significance of chord tones. So why not point that out to begin with? There's no need to say you can "only" use chord tones.

I always point to melodies, get students playing the melodies first, and show how they use chord tones - in fact, it's vice versa, of course, chords are generally added to harmonise a written melody. I think that's the best basis for moving into improvisation, to try and prevent the random effect of just noodling on a scale: beginning with simple phrases based on chord tones (but also using passing notes); then linking them into longer phrases, etc.

[gennation]

I think the biggest confusing fact is that people tie it directly to Music Theory for some reason, or they seek it out thinking it's theory based when its from a completely different perspective...

it's a method of shapes used to help you understand the natural layout of the fretboard...and NOTHING more.

Once you get beyond that then you can see WHERE the theory info might lie, but CAGED alone isn't going to tell you.

And we can all have our "ideas' about it but nobody's going to change the name to CAGE, and also people are still going to continue to learn from it as it a has a serious good track record for getting results.

[Crossroads]

Hi Jon ....

Good. Thanks for explaining how you view CAGED and how you approach it with students. Very helpful.

I think my problem (one of them at least!) is that I only discovered CAGED many years after I'd already "learnt" about scales, chords & improvising.

I put "learnt" in parenthesis because this was of course self-teaching in a pretty mixed-up & chaotic way over many years, so it included all sorts of bit's and pieces, some of which made sense & seemed to work, whilst other things just didn't!

But that's exactly why I asked you about CAGED, ie to see if I ought to have another look at it as a more structured approach to playing. In fact, I'll do exactly that.

Cheers, :)

Ian.

[JonR]

[size=2]Hi Jon ....

Good. Thanks for explaining how you view CAGED and how you approach it with students. Very helpful.

I think my problem (one of them at least!) is that I only discovered CAGED many years after I'd already "learnt" about scales, chords & improvising.

I put "learnt" in parenthesis because this was of course self-teaching in a pretty mixed-up & chaotic way over many years, so it included all sorts of bit's and pieces, some of which made sense & seemed to work, whilst other things just didn't!
Exactly how I learnt! :)
Except I don't recall finding anything that "didn't work" - maybe because I always worked from practice, I didn't read any theory at all (at least not as a way of improving my playing). I knew what worked, just from experience, copying people, etc. What I didn't know - to begin with - was the theory behind it.
IOW, I discovered how movable chord shapes worked, that they all matched open position shapes, and (therefore) the scales I knew down there could be transferred up there. (A lot of it came from working with capos.)
At the same time, I learned my notes, which tied the whole thing together.
I don't recall any confusion, ever. (Technical difficulty, to be sure! I never ventured high up the neck until I knew the notes up there. I worked with what I knew, which was always enough in the bands I was playing in.)

Much later, I read about this so-called "CAGED" system, and was slightly surprised to find I knew it all already! ;)

[Crossroads]

Exactly how I learnt!

Except I don't recall finding anything that "didn't work" ..... I don't recall any confusion, ever .... (Technical difficulty, to be sure! ....)
Well I'm relieved to hear that you at least found some technical problems ;) .

- maybe because I always worked from practice,....

I don't think I had any concept of what "the practice" was. And it stayed that way until I finally discovered that solos were mainly played from scales ... I had at least a dozen books, and not one of them made that clear in any way at all. To play solos, I just made stuff up, or else I tried to copy Clapton & Hendrix by ear, which I found impossible except for an approximation to the main riffs.

I didn't read any theory at all (at least not as a way of improving my playing).

I did try reading theory books in order to understand how guys were playing those fancy sounding solos. But I have to say the books were so opaque & so badly explained as to be virtually useless (I still have all those books, and I still think they are hopeless even though I understand the stuff now) :( .

I knew what worked, just from experience, copying people, etc. What I didn't know - to begin with - was the theory behind it.

Well I didn't know what worked, and I tried a lot of experimentation without ever finding out. Though it was as I said, a fairly random & chaotic approach. And the theory books seemed clear as mud :confused: .

IOW, I discovered how movable chord shapes worked, that they all matched open position shapes, and (therefore) the scales I knew down there could be transferred up there. (A lot of it came from working with capos.)

Yes, I also discovered moveable chord shapes (though I was rarely sure what key I was in!). But I didn't know anything about scales at all, so there was no way I could relate the chords to anything at all really ... just what sounded nice. I never understood what a Capo was for!

At the same time, I learned my notes, which tied the whole thing together.

I had good chord book with a neck diagram showing all the notes, but I never learned any of them except those I used for tuning the guitar (ie open strings, 5th fret, and 12th fret). So there was no way I could relate the notes to anything. I knew the notes occurred in the chords, but I didn't know why ... none of the dozen "theory" books mentioned "harmonizing the major scale" at all (I still have the books ... one or two are interesting now, but the others are just valued as nostalgia).

Technical difficulty, to be sure! I never ventured high up the neck until I knew the notes up there. I worked with what I knew, which was always enough in the bands I was playing in.

Technical difficulty was not something I ever even thought about. I listened to Albert King and I learnt how to bend strings in a OTT way, and for me that was technique! I spent a lot of time trying to improvise solos around the 15th and 17th positions, simply because I liked the higher pitched piercing tones of various blues players. I could tell you about 2 bands at that stage, but it's boring lol...suffice is to say, quite clearly we had no idea what we were doing!

Much later, I read about this so-called "CAGED" system, and was slightly surprised to find I knew it all already!

I only heard of CAGED about 7 years ago when I started to play again after putting the guitars away for about 20 years. But as I say, it just looked like an unnecessary confusion. By this time of course I had discovered scales (thanks to modern books, Videos and DVD's). In fact, I immediately discovered that what I'd been improvising with all those years was in fact most of the five minor pentatonic patterns.

It was, as this admission makes clear, a very hazy & unclear business originally :o . Which is partly why I picked it up again 7 years ago, ie to see if I could make proper sense of it this time around ... & I'm pleased to say, I can!

It’s been a very interesting and highly rewarding journey, if somewhat of a rocky road! :)

Ian.

[JonR]

I don't think I had any concept of what "the practice" was. And it stayed that way until I finally discovered that solos were mainly played from scales ... I had at least a dozen books, and not one of them made that clear in any way at all. To play solos, I just made stuff up, or else I tried to copy Clapton & Hendrix by ear, which I found impossible except for an approximation to the main riffs.

I did try reading theory books in order to understand how guys were playing those fancy sounding solos. But I have to say the books were so opaque & so badly explained as to be virtually useless (I still have all those books, and I still think they are hopeless even though I understand the stuff now) :( .

Well I didn't know what worked, and I tried a lot of experimentation without ever finding out. Though it was as I said, a fairly random & chaotic approach. And the theory books seemed clear as mud :confused: .When I began - hey, the rest of you, excuse us old guys rambling about the old days :rolleyes: - there were no theory books dealing with pop/rock music. (Rock itself barely existed). There was no tab. There were songbooks of pop songs with vocal melodies and piano arrangements (as there still are), and I could read music, so that helped with learning songs. But those books never contained the interesting guitar stuff (solos, riffs).
And there were no books at all on the stuff I really wanted to play: pre-WWII acoustic blues, and folk fingerstyle.
And I didn't have a very good ear.
But I did have a 2-speed reel-to-reel tape recorder, and a compulsive adolescent obsession... ;) (hours spent going over one track, till I got it. No going out with friends... no TV.... :rolleyes: )

I used capos because that was what my heroes did. (Made my lousy cheap acoustic easier to play too.)

[Sigh] you kids today... :rolleyes:

[Crossroads]

[Sigh] you kids today... :rolleyes:
Ha, yeah...it is beginning to sound like that old Monty Python Sketch about 4 self-made Yorkshire men becoming increasingly ridiculous about claims of how tough it was when they were growing up :D .

Though one thing I was trying to do was to highlight for some less appreciative teachers, and maybe also for new players/students (not for Jon, because it's clear from all his posts that his teaching does have the necessary patience and understanding etc.), just how completely impenetrable this stuff can appear when guys first begin learning guitar.

What I called "theory books" were publications from the late 60's through 1970's, which claimed to tell you the "Theory of Rock Guitar" or "How to Improvise Rock & Blues", titles like that. But after criticizing them in the post above, it also occurred to me that not one of those books has a single scale pattern in it! Not ONE! How the Hell did the author expect readers to learn solo electric guitar like that? :mad: Not one single arpeggio pattern either, and of course no mention of CAGED.

But getting back to CAGED, and Jon's emphasis on starting in the open position with scales around the open chords - the one thing I never did, and even now I rarely do it, was to try playing/improvising solo parts in the open position ie frets zero to 3. For some reason it just never occurred to me as the place where guys were playing the stuff (on UK film/TV, Clapton, Hendrix, Page, Beck etc. always seem to have their hands much higher up the neck ... so I tried it there :rolleyes: ).

Ian.

[gennation]

My "book" was a record and a needle. Thank god I had one that I could turn the speed down to 16. Of course it was (approx) half speed and half pitch too!

I had one book for years...Chord Chemistry. That was one heck of a book. Actually that's probably the first time I heard about CAGED, the Pass vid (video's in general) didn't come out until about 6 years later.

And of course I befriended other guitarists and copped a lot that way.

But that record player was the defining difference for me.

[JonR]

My "book" was a record and a needle. Thank god I had one that I could turn the speed down to 16. Of course it was (approx) half speed and half pitch too!A record player!?! Ee, you had it lucky! We dreamed of record players! We had to make do with putting the record on the ground and running round it with a pin in the groove...
that's if we could manage to steal a record in the first place...
:D

[gennation]

A record player!?! Ee, you had it lucky! We dreamed of record players! We had to make do with putting the record on the ground and running round it with a pin in the groove...
that's if we could manage to steal a record in the first place...
:D

LOL

[Crossroads]

We dreamed of record players! We had to make do with putting the record on the ground and running round it with a pin in the groove...
that's if we could manage to steal a record in the first place...
:D

A pin? Sheer luxury! There were 26 of us fighting over a bee sting, and the only record in our house was fathers 346 convictions for aggravated child cruelty. But it was a good life.

However, in fact I actually didn't even have a record player! And it was because I couldn't afford one! (how then could I afford an electric guitar? ...well I saved money from 2 paper-rounds, for 2 years ... no amp of course lol).

I'd hear the records at friends houses, and then I'd go home & try to play the guitar parts from memory.

That was fine though, because it meant I learnt all the tunes in my head (so I could hum all the guitar parts from all the Hendrix's LP's, all the Cream LP's , everything from Jeff Beck...from start to finish lol!)

And actually I think it's very important to do that (ie getting all those classic guitar phrases into your head), especially when it later comes to improvising ... where the so-called "improvisation" is using myriad variations on all those classic guitar licks that are running around in your mind.

Ian.

[Shooty]

CAGED system has always been the primary method I use to teach students how to visualize chords on the fretboard. If you understand where all roots thirds and fifths are located and how to alter these tones to create other chord qualities, you will have a great pool of voicings to draw from.

Knowing that you can cut a voicing down is very helpful. For instance I am not likely to use a full G shape barre chord on the 5th fret to create a C chord. But I might use just the 1st 4th and 5th strings to create an interesting C chord from this shape. To make this chord minor lower the pitch on the 5th string 1/2 step (This is the third tone of the chord)

Its not the "end all" of fretboard theory but it is very logical and I have great success using this method as my basic mapping system with students from as young as ten years old.

[curiousgeorge]

Isn't CAGED a little restrictive to linear playing more focused on positions?

[guitarguru888]

Yeah, u can definitely find a lot of info online for beginning guitar -- and most of it is free. All kinds of videos on youtube and stuff -- but beware....

I just got from the "beginner" level to the "intermediate" level -- but it was with help from an online course that I had to pay for. I had started with the free stuff but the problem was that I couldn't ORGANIZE the free lessons in any kind of moderately rational way.. I was always switching between various videos and there was no order to anything. So I was trying to do scales when I should have just been dealing with really basic picking technique and etc.

So eventually I decided I need to do an actual online course -- http://consumerfilter.org/products/jamorama -- it actually worked pretty well! I might recommend you try it out.

cheers ;)

[UKRuss]

spamorama.

[gennation]

Isn't CAGED a little restrictive to linear playing more focused on positions?

It's hard to say CAGED doesn't have "something". It uses the fundamental aspect of the guitar, how the fretboard works.

In your case, the positions are linear, so all the chords/triads and scales can still be seen/used linearly.

[Crossroads]

Isn't CAGED a little restrictive to linear playing more focused on positions?

No, I think it's the opposite. Ie, CAGED does help you to play in a more "linear" fashion. By which I mean (& I think you mean?) improvising licks/phrases stretched out along the length of the fretboard (rather than staying fixing around a single box position).


Just to explain that - although I said above that I was never really a fan of CAGED, it was because I never really saw it's value. But in reply to JonR I did say that as a result of this thread I would give CAGED another go, and for the past week or so my practice routines have included a couple of hours a day working with CAGED.

I now see why it's so useful.

So here's a lengthy resume of my past weeks thoughts on CAGED ....

.... the value of CAGED (as I now see it) is that you are learning all the possible moveable chord shapes as they travel up the neck from open position to 24th fret (or however many frets you have). That may sound impossible, but in fact it's true...because all possible chord shapes are derived from variations of those 5 CAGED shapes.

That may sound like you are just learning a whole bunch of chords. And that may seem unappealing if your goal is to play fancy lead stuff. And that was in fact one reason I never looked seriously at CAGED in the past.

However, the second aspect of CAGED is that all those moving chord shapes can be seen as a template around which the basic major and minor diatonic scales are built. IOW - with each chord shape you have an associated scale pattern.

That may sound like a daunting task to construct a scale pattern around each and any chord in any position. But the shape of the chord, or more specifically the geometric pattern made by it's root notes (ie the arrangement of possible root notes in the chord) gives you a strong hint at what the associated scale pattern should be. So you quickly begin to see a fairly intuitive principle here, whereby each chord shape is associated with a surrounding scale pattern.

But still none of the above is really the point of CAGED. Nor is it the answer to why I say it encourages the "linear" improvisation you asked about.

Instead, as I see it, the main attraction of CAGED is that construction of those chord shapes and recognition of their geometric forms, is determined by recognizing the INTERVAL patterns within the chords.

IOW - what you are really doing with CAGED is learning INTERVAL relationships all over the fretboard.

So this is really a method for what we might call "Chord Tone Soloing", ie learning to improvise by targeting the root notes and the other strong interval notes in each chord shape. I think that's the bottom line, ie the purpose of CAGED ... at least that's the way it seems to me after working with it for a week.

And it's "linear" because you soon begin to concentrate not on the CAGED chord shapes, nor even on the classic diatonic scale patterns, but instead you begin to work from the root notes of the chords using those as a stepping stone to hit all/any of the other chord intervals/tones when soloing. And of course you may see those root notes in any position all along the neck, and from those roots you soon recognise the geometric arrangement with the other chord intervals, ie maj3rd to 5th has a particular shape/pattern, 7th is a semi-tone below the root, b7th is whole tone below root, 5th is adjacent to the root on the previous string, and of course the 5th also forms the usual power chord shape with the root (ie up 2 frets on next higher string) etc. etc. ... it just makes you focus on those chord tone intervals.

In my case it helped that I already knew all the notes on the fretboard anyway, and also had a good idea of interval patterns anyway. I suppose a complete newcomer might struggle for a while over some of this, because with CAGED you are trying to learn a very big chunk of practice & theory in one go....ie you are trying to learn moveable chord shapes in numerous forms and positions (often with CAGED the stretches are very awkward, and you may need to modify the usual CAGED shapes to make them more playable), you are learning the scale patterns, you are learning to associate the scale patterns with the chord patterns, and you are ultimately learning all the possible interval shapes as they occur within those scales and chords ... and in that respect it may be helpful if you are also simultaneously learning all the names of the notes and also learning to recognise the sound of each of those different intervals (as well as their geometric interval-shapes).

Well that lot (para. above) is of course a crazy big chunk for a new player to learn. I would never try to teach a new player like that! And in fact I think Jon and I must have been at cross purposes earlier when Jon replied saying he disagreed with my statement that "it's obviously easier just to learn the scale patterns without bothering with CAGED".

On the face of it, it is obviously easier to simply learn the scale patterns alone, in isolation. I don't think there can be any dispute about that. But what I suppose Jon means is that if your goal is to improvise solos, then CAGED is a way to do that. Whereas you do not really get much improvisational insight from simply learning the scale patterns in isolation.

In that sense you might say CAGED is easier as a method of learning to improvise. Ie easier than my previous long-time approach of simply learning scale patterns in isolation and attempting to improvise from those "by ear", ie by gradually becoming so familiar with the sound of the scale notes and the sound of backing chords that you can more-or-less hit the intended scale notes/sounds by “experience“. In contrast CAGED gives you a principle to work from, ie you target the chord tones/intervals!

But from a teaching point of view (which was the Q in the OP) you could start CAGED, as JonR says, beginning just with the 5 open position chords and looking at diatonic major & minor scales around those in the open position ... and then look at the intervals & try soloing from them in that open position.

JonR has a lot of experience with teaching, & I don’t, so I’d be interested to hear his view on this, but I think with a relatively new player, I’d still begin by first teaching the major scale patterns in isolation. And then I’d move to CAGED. Ie so that CAGED is introduced as a device for using those scale patterns as a means of soloing from the chord tones. I think that route would be simpler and clearer for the student, and I think it would make more logical sense than simply starting with what does after all turn into quite a large mass of info. within CAGED.

Anyway, that's my take on it after 5 days/sessions lol! So any comments .... most welcome :) .

Ian.

[JonR]

However, the second aspect of CAGED is that all those moving chord shapes can be seen as a template around which the basic major and minor diatonic scales are built. IOW - with each chord shape you have an associated scale pattern.Yes!!

That may sound like a daunting task to construct a scale pattern around each and any chord in any position. But the shape of the chord, or more specifically the geometric pattern made by it's root notes (ie the arrangement of possible root notes in the chord) gives you a strong hint at what the associated scale pattern should be. So you quickly begin to see a fairly intuitive principle here, whereby each chord shape is associated with a surrounding scale pattern.Yes. This whole process was a lot easier for me (even intuitive and obvious) because I learned my major scales in open position first. So if I was playing in (say) the key of E, I knew the E major scale and saw how it fitted round the chord (and also the A and B7 chords of course). So when translating the chord to a movable shape up the neck, obviously the scale pattern went with it.
I found out it was called the "CAGED" system much later...
(I knew from working with capos that an "E" shape at 3rd fret produced a G chord... etc...)

I never played solos from scale patterns high up the neck. I always played them off the chord shapes, in open position to begin with - because that was how I heard my heroes playing, the old pre-WWII blues guys.
I still find it almost breathtaking how lucky I was to have learned this way. (Nobody taught me, I didn't have any intentional aim.) I've never been confused about how to improvise, in any form of music. It baffles me how so many people get into a fix about how to "apply" scales, which "modes" to use, etc etc... :rolleyes:

Anyway...
But still none of the above is really the point of CAGED. Nor is it the answer to why I say it encourages the "linear" improvisation you asked about.

Instead, as I see it, the main attraction of CAGED is that construction of those chord shapes and recognition of their geometric forms, is determined by recognizing the INTERVAL patterns within the chords.

IOW - what you are really doing with CAGED is learning INTERVAL relationships all over the fretboard.

So this is really a method for what we might call "Chord Tone Soloing", ie learning to improvise by targeting the root notes and the other strong interval notes in each chord shape. I think that's the bottom line, ie the purpose of CAGED ... at least that's the way it seems to me after working with it for a week.

And it's "linear" because you soon begin to concentrate not on the CAGED chord shapes, nor even on the classic diatonic scale patterns, but instead you begin to work from the root notes of the chords using those as a stepping stone to hit all/any of the other chord intervals/tones when soloing. And of course you may see those root notes in any position all along the neck, and from those roots you soon recognise the geometric arrangement with the other chord intervals, ie maj3rd to 5th has a particular shape/pattern, 7th is a semi-tone below the root, b7th is whole tone below root, 5th is adjacent to the root on the previous string, and of course the 5th also forms the usual power chord shape with the root (ie up 2 frets on next higher string) etc. etc. ... it just makes you focus on those chord tone intervals.This is PRECISELY how I think of it too.
Except of course, I did it back to front - I solo'd from chords to start with, understanding all those chord tones, extensions and intervals (beginning with the major pent of each chord). Mapping out the fretboard from there was easy and logical.

In my case it helped that I already knew all the notes on the fretboard anyway, and also had a good idea of interval patterns anyway. I suppose a complete newcomer might struggle for a while over some of this, because with CAGED you are trying to learn a very big chunk of practice & theory in one go....ie you are trying to learn moveable chord shapes in numerous forms and positions (often with CAGED the stretches are very awkward, and you may need to modify the usual CAGED shapes to make them more playable), you are learning the scale patterns, you are learning to associate the scale patterns with the chord patterns, and you are ultimately learning all the possible interval shapes as they occur within those scales and chords ... and in that respect it may be helpful if you are also simultaneously learning all the names of the notes and also learning to recognise the sound of each of those different intervals (as well as their geometric interval-shapes).

Well that lot (para. above) is of course a crazy big chunk for a new player to learn. I would never try to teach a new player like that! And in fact I think Jon and I must have been at cross purposes earlier when Jon replied saying he disagreed with my statement that "it's obviously easier just to learn the scale patterns without bothering with CAGED".You're right of course that - in all - it's a huge chunk of info to digest. I would start teaching it the way I started learning: How the major scales of those 5 chords roots fit round the chords, in open position.
I teach my beginners the open position C major scale on the first day. I think that's fundamental. Of course, they have problems playing the chord - that comes a little later. (I give them the basic shapes on the first day - they just can't play them right for a few weeks. I'm talking adults and teenagers, btw.)
I progress to songs in the key of G (friendlier for guitarists than C!), teaching the G major scale accordingly. (I always teach melodies before chords. A "song" is both: tune and chords.)

I steadily work my way around the circle of 5ths (not always mentioning that concept - theory tends to make eyes glaze over...), simply because most popular guitar songs are in those keys: C, G, D, A, E. And the major scale of each one is relevant (crucial) if you are going to play the melody.
And - of course - learning melodies is fundamental to being able to improvise sensibly. (However I don't get my students into improvisation for some monthns down the line - even years in some cases. I would attempt it sooner, but few of them get the idea at all. And those that really want to need to understand key, melody and chords first - IMO.)

The idea is that students acquire an association of major scale and key chord. (Plus - hopefully! - the awareness that the other chords in the key derive from the same scale.)

Once that sinks in... the CAGED system is the natural tool with which to understand the rest of the neck.
On the face of it, it is obviously easier to simply learn the scale patterns alone, in isolation. I don't think there can be any dispute about that. But what I suppose Jon means is that if your goal is to improvise solos, then CAGED is a way to do that. Whereas you do not really get much improvisational insight from simply learning the scale patterns in isolation. Yes. It may be easy to learn scale patterns in isolation. But what's the point? If you then need some other complicated system to understand how to use them?

[CONT...]

[JonR]

(PART 2 of post that was too long for one entry... :rolleyes: ]

...from a teaching point of view (which was the Q in the OP) you could start CAGED, as JonR says, beginning just with the 5 open position chords and looking at diatonic major & minor scales around those in the open position ... and then look at the intervals & try soloing from them in that open position.

JonR has a lot of experience with teaching, & I don’t, so I’d be interested to hear his view on this,See above!
but I think with a relatively new player, I’d still begin by first teaching the major scale patterns in isolation.Why? In isolation from what?
My view is that there is only one major scale. It's a matter of understanding the "do-re-mi" sound first. Then seeing how we get that sound out of the guitar, with an arrangement of steps and half-steps.
I find it quite useful to demonstrate the pattern up one string. That's how we'd have to play if the guitar only had one string! However, the cunning tuning system of the guitar enables us to spread the scale across the strings, 3 (or 2) notes per string, so we don't need to move our hands up and down the neck.
IOW, the patterns themselves are meaningless, arbitrary. I don't like the idea of teaching a pattern without the understanding of what it is, what it contains and represents. Because one needs to learn that sooner or later, if one is to use it properly. So why not at the beginning, so it makes sense from day 1?

If that understanding of the major scale is there, then other keys (and other patterns of one key) are just different ways of finding the notes we need.

Of course, the CAGED system still relies on 5 of those arbitrary patterns (chord shapes) as hooks. But by the time I teach that, those 5 shapes are already ingrained - so we may as well make use of them.


I think, in truth, there are many ways to get to where we need to get to. The goal is to be able to hear a sound in our heads and immediately find it on the guitar. We don't even need note names to be able to do that. But note names - and other theoretical concepts - along with pattern-based concepts (CAGED or not) - are handy markers on that route.
The only reason I teach the way I do (and favour CAGED to a certain extent, without worshipping it above all others!) is that - by sheer chance - the way I learned worked.
As I've said many times before :rolleyes: - my only stumbling blocks were technical: getting my fingers to do what I wanted. I never had a problem knowing what I wanted them to do!
I admit teaching myself was slow. I had no agenda to become professional within X number of months/years - I just wanted to enjoy myself. But I was gigging in bands after 9 months of playing, and improvising (admittedly crudely) not long after that.
In fact, I never saw the boundary: when you strum a chord sequence, you do it your own way. If you play a boogie or shuffle pattern, you're adding a 6th to a major chord - hey, now you're playing with 4 notes out of the major pentatonic! If you're playing a blues in E, you're probably sometimes hammering on from the open G to the G#, or from the open 4th string D to the E. Hey - that's improvisation! It's just messing around, finding stuff. You do that (or should do) as a rhythm guitarist. It all grows from there. There's no big gulf (or shouldn't be) between a plodding chord strummer following a chart, and a flying lead player wailing away up the top of the neck.
You can't be good at the latter without climbing the ladder - which is (IMO) made of chords.

[Crossroads]

Well... YES to everything (of course).

But just to explain this bit -

Why? In isolation from what?

First I should stress that having only looked at CAGED for a week, I don't have the experience you do with it. Quite likely, after working on CAGED a little more, I might easily change my mind.

But I think as a concept, CAGED links several ideas together. And for complete beginners, I think it's probably easier to first learn a scale pattern and a few open position chords in complete "isolation".

By which I mean ..."here's the scale of Cmajor, starting on the note C, just learn to play that pattern". Next, .... "here are half a dozen chords in the open position, just practice those".

I think that's a clear and easy way to start, with no risk of confusing anyone.

After that, you can explain that the chords actually come from the scales, by using certain notes according to a simple formula ("stacking 3rds"). And explain how those chords will therefore be "in key" with that particular scale. And hence those scale notes can be used to improvise solos against those chords, because they are all from the same “key“. For that example I’d use the Cmaj scale and it's harmonised chords, and then introduce the idea of a relative minor scale, and show Amin pentatonic in 5th position (because I think Amin pentatonic is a very useful scale for guitarists).

At this stage, having introduced the idea of improvising solos by using the scale notes against their harmonised chords, I'd introduce CAGED as a way of targeting the chord notes when soloing. So now I'd start teaching the CAGED chord-shapes, and try to show how they seemed to fit inside the scale patterns.

As I say, I think for complete beginners the problem with CAGED is that it does tie several new concepts together - scale patterns, embedded chord-shapes, soloing by targeting chord tones within scale patterns. You might also say that each of those concepts has further embedded ideas which are necessary to understand - scales made by a formula of interval steps (WWHWWWH etc.), chords also formed by intervals, solo target-notes navigated by interval-shapes. Now it's getting a bit too much like a tangled web lol.

I also think it does take something of the “eye of faith” to see those CAGED chord shapes as part of the scale patterns. It’s a bit like recognising the constellations in the night sky. And especially as you start to move up the fretboard with the barre patterns, some of the shapes are very awkward to play even for experienced players (Gmin and Dmin) and you may need to alter those shapes to make them playable, so now apart from the fretting difficulties, the altered shapes look even less like they fit in the scale patterns. None of that’s a big problem, but for new players I think it may risk information overload.

That's why it seems to me logical and clearer for beginners if we start with just learning a scale pattern and some open chords in "isolation". And then move on to CAGED as a method for focusing on the most effective scale-notes to hit when soloing.

Ian.

[Crossroads]

I never played solos from scale patterns high up the neck. I always played them off the chord shapes, in open position to begin with - because that was how I heard my heroes playing, the old pre-WWII blues guys.

I still find it almost breathtaking how lucky I was to have learned this way. (Nobody taught me, I didn't have any intentional aim.) I've never been confused about how to improvise, in any form of music. It baffles me how so many people get into a fix about how to "apply" scales, which "modes" to use, etc etc...

What do you think your approach would have been if, instead of listening to those pre-WWII blues guys (presumably playing acoustic, often in open position with lots of open strings & walking bass lines etc?), you’d started off as I did trying to copy what you heard & saw from Clapton, Hendrix, and Beck?

I didn’t see those guys playing in the open position. On the contrary, they seemed to be mostly playing high up on the neck past the 12th fret.

As I said in an earlier thread - I never associated the solos with chords in any way at all.

Maybe one issue was that for several years I really didn’t know if I was supposed to be playing chords/rhythm and solos/lead at the same time?:o ?

That confusion was probably fuelled by the fact that I was listening to (& watching) Clapton and Hendrix who played in 3-piece bands without a rhythm guitarist ... so I thought they must be playing rhythm & lead at the same time :confused: (and to an extent, they were...but not in the way that I imagined!).

If you ever read other guitar forums (yes, I know this is a music forum, & I’d encourage more pianists and violinists etc.), then it’s clear to me that a significant number of guys still try to play in the same opaque way I did all those years ago!

And as I’ve said in this thread - even now I’m only just starting to take CAGED seriously, and beginning to consciously target chord tones, as distinct from my long-time approach of hitting the notes mainly by so-called “experience”.

Anyway - I don’t suppose it was entirely “luck” which led you into a good approach from the start. And unfortunately I doubt if it was purely bad luck which led me down a series of dead end alleys lol. But hey, we all learn in the end ... if we try hard enough!

Ian.

[JonR]

But I think as a concept, CAGED links several ideas together. And for complete beginners, I think it's probably easier to first learn a scale pattern and a few open position chords in complete "isolation".

By which I mean ..."here's the scale of Cmajor, starting on the note C, just learn to play that pattern". Next, .... "here are half a dozen chords in the open position, just practice those".

I think that's a clear and easy way to start, with no risk of confusing anyone.Absolutely. We're on the same page here. (I agree with the other stuff I'm editing out here too...)

I also think it does take something of the “eye of faith” to see those CAGED chord shapes as part of the scale patterns. It’s a bit like recognising the constellations in the night sky. And especially as you start to move up the fretboard with the barre patterns, some of the shapes are very awkward to play even for experienced players (Gmin and Dmin) and you may need to alter those shapes to make them playable, so now apart from the fretting difficulties, the altered shapes look even less like they fit in the scale patterns. None of that’s a big problem, but for new players I think it may risk information overload.Yes, if they get given the whole lot in one go.
But the idea of seeing the "Em" chord shape in that 5th fret Am pent pattern is a start. The chord shape gives you 1-b3-5. The pent adds 4 and b7. But the chord rules; it's where you start and end (probably, or at least to begin with) when soloing with that pattern.
I think it would be important for students to be fully comfortable with that idea (one pattern one chord), before moving to 7-note scales and the other chord shapes contained within them.

I actually think major and minor pents are an essential half-way point between chord shapes (chord tones, arpeggios) and full 7-note scale patterns. That's where improvisation begins, because pents always work. You can't play a wrong note with a major pent on a major chord, or minor pent on a minor chord.
(Although maybe it's important to explain the crucial alternative blues/rock convention of the tonic minor pent on I-IV-V major chords... :rolleyes: The way I work in that area is to hand out 1-bar cliche phrases to practice. IOW, melodic elements, ignoring the question of fitting the chords, working only within a key.)

[JonR]

What do you think your approach would have been if, instead of listening to those pre-WWII blues guys (presumably playing acoustic, often in open position with lots of open strings & walking bass lines etc?), you’d started off as I did trying to copy what you heard & saw from Clapton, Hendrix, and Beck?

I didn’t see those guys playing in the open position. On the contrary, they seemed to be mostly playing high up on the neck past the 12th fret. Good point. I should perhaps give a bit more detail of how I learned.
I started as a Shadows fan - before I could play guitar, before I even thought I could be a guitar player. What I really loved then was strong, simple, stirring melodies - as well as that electric guitar sound! (Space age stuff in the early 60s...)
Then I got into the Stones and Yardbirds in 1964. Clapton was with the Yardbirds then of course, but it was more the overall sound of the music I liked, than the lead guitar specifically: the energy, the rebellious noise, the inventiveness (I was 15 y'understand...). When Clapton left the Yardbirds in 1965 to join Mayall, I preferred the Yardbirds' proto-psychedelic pop-rock songs to Mayall's rather dull (I thought) blues. (I did like Mayall's band, but it didn't have a lot of "zap" - it was kind of worthy, not remotely exciting.)
It was the folk boom of 1965 - and my schoolfriends forming an acoustic group - that persuaded me that guitar was something I could aspire to myself. Acoustic guitars were cheap and simple. Electric guitars (and all that mysterious paraphernalia) were well out of reach!
That group of friends was a jug band, so I was swiftly introduced to the almost painfully obscure and scratchy genre of 1930s blues (via Jim Kweskin's 1963 LP). But I was struck by the unassailable authenticity of it, and the mixture of humour and melancholy reaching forward across the decades. (Dammit, it was only 30 years earlier. It's like today's youth being in awe of punk rock... But then I guess many of them are... :rolleyes: )
The other style I got obsessed with was contemporary folk fingerstyle - Bert Jansch, etc.
But I became a real snob about "pure" blues, seeing all subsequent developments as inferior. Clapton was "god" to some, but not to me. I knew where he was coming from, and I preferred to go back there.
The guy that really impressed me was Hendrix (natch! :rolleyes: ). But still, it wasn't so much the guitar-playing as the sounds - the effects, the chord changes, the wildness. When it came to electric guitar (I got my first one in 1969), I was more into weird psychedelic noises than I was into guitar technique. I wasn't interested in the detail of blues-rock soloing. If I wanted impressive guitar technique, I turned to the acoustic, and fingerstyle blues, ragtime and folk.

IOW - to bring this personal odyssey somewhat back on track :rolleyes: - the question of improvisation was a very broad area for me. Fingerstyle blues and ragtime taught me how everything came from the chords. And I never really thought of myself as "improvising" anyway, it didn't seem a specially different way of playing from anything else.
When I joined my first rock band, I was joint lead guitar. I learned a lot of Chuck Berry riffs - also based very tightly on chord shapes. It was that kind of band. (I think the other guitarist was more a Jimmy Page fan, and I let him get on with that kind of playing.)
Only 2 or 3 years later, I joined a folk band who branched out into Django-style jazz. This was my first experience of jazz lead playing (around 8 years after I started guitar). I transcribed a few Django solos, but mostly I faked it with major pentatonics, and chromatic approach notes. Everything still based off chord tones. It worked fine. Nobody objected, and I even got compliments. (The rhythm guitarist was actually the major Django obsessive, even building himself a Macaferri copy. But he didn't pull rank to take over the lead role.)
I knew no jazz theory at this time - none! But I knew the chord shapes (discovering the delights of m6, m7b5 and dim7, to add to the dom7s, m7s and maj7s I knew). Everything just slotted into place.

At this time, I'd still not encountered the notion of positional fret patterns. I knew all that stuff, of course, but I'd done it via learning notes and learning chord shapes. Worked my way up, as it were. So there was never any disconnection. No "huh?" at how things called "scales" might work. It was obvious.
(I'd never seen tab either, and of course the word "mode" was unheard of...)

Now - OK - many young beginners might think 8 years a hopelessly long time to arrive at a still makeshift way of playing 1930s-style jazz lead! :rolleyes:
But of course it took that long because I wasn't trying. I wasn't focussed. It was a haphazard amateur process focussed on having fun. Copying players I admired as closely as I could, of course, but not attempting to work out any conscious strategy, or to understand anything theoretically. I was in no hurry; had no interest in challenges (other than in transcribing and mastering the next Blind Blake or Bert Jansch piece, for myself).
If anyone had offered me lessons, I would have turned them down. Not because I thought I knew best (although maybe there was an element of that), but because I didn't want to take it that seriously.

What I've tried to do as a teacher is distil the elements of that process that worked. I'm obviously not suggesting everyone follows my own bizarre development step by step! But with hindsight a clear pattern emerges. What were accidental discoveries for me can be built into a coherent system, discarding the messy peripheral stuff. That system is pretty close to the CAGED system.

[Crossroads]

Interesting. But, if you had NOT started by trying to copy that early acoustic open position playing, do you think you would have still alighted so quickly on playing solos from the chord notes?

If instead you had started by trying to copy the Bluesbreakers album, eg tracks like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mmh0AcrKczc ., do you think you would still have realised the guitarist was playing from chord notes? Because I didn't!

Ian.

[ZakJenkins]

From a personal standpoint, when I first picked up the guitar, I first learned my C, A, G, E, and D chords, then proceeded to noodle around with little variations of them, like D to Dsus. After taking some time to learn some CAGED theory, I've found that I can take those melodic ideas I'd learned based on chord tones, and apply them to whichever key and chord I wanted.

It opened up my voicings incredibly as well. For instance, when I used to see a C on a sheet of music, I would just play a C chord, rather and thinking about where the melody is going and which inversion the chord sounds best in and such.

Personally, I think CAGED works better as an auxillary method, one to be learned after you've gotten your fundamentals down and have had time to explore yourself. But of course, I've never actually played with someone who started from Day 1 with CAGED, so I'm not sure how that would affect their playing.

[JonR]

Interesting. But, if you had NOT started by trying to copy that early acoustic open position playing, do you think you would have still alighted so quickly on playing solos from the chord notes?

If instead you had started by trying to copy the Bluesbreakers album, eg tracks like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mmh0AcrKczc ., do you think you would still have realised the guitarist was playing from chord notes? Because I didn't!

Ian.

You're probably right. I think I did learn that tune around that time, but I can't remember how I regarded it. I would have learned the riff (minor pent), but probably given up on the solo. It wouldn't have interested me that much.
As I said before, Clapton never made me go "wow", enough to want to learn how he played. The guys that did that were acoustic ragtime/blues fingerstyle players.
I did once transcribe Peter Green's classic solo on "So Many Roads", but that was some years later. (I see my transcription is dated 1972 - yes I've kept all my old manuscript books! right from the childish pencil compositions of 1965... :o ). I did that not because it excited me, but because I'd heard about it and was curious. A challenge to transpose, but not an interesting enough challenge to play. It's all minor pent, of course.

In fact, looking back at all my old manuscript books, I see that my main obsession was with songwriting, not guitar playing. As well as my own feeble attempts at composition, I wrote out all kinds of other songs, from early 20s jazz, to blues, to contemporary pop - either copied from borrowed books, or transcribed from record. I filled pages with that stuff. Not because I or my bands were going to play those songs, but just because I wanted to get inside the music.
There are a few guitar-only pieces in there (eg solos from Rock Around the Clock and Be Bop A Lula, and the odd Chuck Berry lick, and some ragtime and classical pieces). But mostly it's melodies and chord sequences.
Later on, I transcribed more actual solos, but I had a big grounding in melody, chords and rhythm. Everything was built on that, so naturally I understood improvisation from that perspective.

[Crossroads]

It wasn't really a Q about Clapton, or about that particular track - instead I was just trying to understand how you came to associate chord tones with soloing, and at a time quite soon after getting your first guitar (at a date when there was little or nothing to suggest that to you). And I think you explained that (it was what early acoustic jazz/blues players seemed to be doing, and you tried to copy that).

But really I was just saying that I never did make that association. And amongst other reasons (perhaps), it was probably because I was trying to copy tracks like Steppin Out, where it seemed to me it was all solo notes with no guitar chords at all (I hadn't the faintest idea what the keyboard player was doing lol!).

So, as far as I could see, there was no reason for me to consider chords at all ... because that sort of lead playing didn't seem to use any chords at all.

When it didn't work (after a lot of effort), I trawled Denmark St and Charing X. Rd. looking for the sheet music (although I couldn't read notation, and this was before TAB was popular). The idea being that I would learn to read notation if necessary. But of course there was no proper sheet music for Clapton, Hendrix or Beck at that time .... I did find a few rare printed song sheets with chords and words (I still have a Yardbirds "EP" songsheet like that), but no hint of how to play any lead parts. So then I turned to the books, but for "theory" they only explained how to shift barre chords up the neck. .. duh c'mon :mad: ... hmm, getting pretty frustrating!

Anyway, just re. Steppin Out - yes, it's pentatonic stuff of course (but great scales imho!) ... the opening riff (first 12 bars) follows a I-V-I progression in key of G, and so he starts with 4 measures in Gminor pentatonic, then plays the next four in Dminor pentatonic, and then back to Gminor for 4 bars. And then it moves directly into the solo, which I think is standard I-IV-V in G, using a mix of Gminor and Gmajor pentatonics. The whole song is one long fiery solo really (I think?), but a great track I think.

But I'm probably droning on a bit now lol :D .

Ian.

[JonR]

[size=2]When it didn't work (after a lot of effort), I trawled Denmark St and Charing X. Rd. looking for the sheet music (although I couldn't read notation, and this was before TAB was popular). The idea being that I would learn to read notation if necessary. But of course there was no proper sheet music for Clapton, Hendrix or Beck at that time .... I did find a few rare printed song sheets with chords and words (I still have a Yardbirds "EP" songsheet like that), but no hint of how to play any lead parts. So then I turned to the books, but for "theory" they only explained how to shift barre chords up the neck. .. duh c'mon :mad: ... hmm, getting pretty frustrating!My experience was very similar. But I didnt turn to books for theory. I listened and transcribed (as well as my 2-speed tape deck and cloth ears enabled me to at the time...). I don't think it would have occurred to me that there might be a "theory" behind it all.
To give you an idea of my initial concept of improvisation: my earliest compositions (age 16) consisted of crude melodies - including parts for bass and sometimes drums, sometimes lyrics - but when it came to a solo section (I knew there had to be one), my notated instructions simply read "go mad" :D . IOW, that job was up to someone else to go crazy in any way they saw fit. (I know that my primary school pupils today have a very similar concept of improvisation... :rolleyes: )

So when I started learning solos by copying, I just picked up typical phrases. (This would be in a rock context, where lead guitar had a distinct separate role from rhythm.) I didn't ask "hmm, I wonder why they chose those notes?". I just stole a few licks I liked and strung them together. (I knew enough to be able to put them in the right key when required!)

The "working from chord tones" idea was something else - from the acoustic blues context, as I said. Still not a conscious "theory" - but again, just from copying what the players I liked did. I didn't even think of it as "improvisation", it was just the style: fingerpick chords and add the odd note here and there, or a passing run.

I think it was probably the Django experience that led me to synthesize the two approaches. Hot jazz had something in common with the old acoustic jug band music I was weaned on, but it also had that solo single-string lead guitar playing that seemed to be composed of melodic licks. When I transcribed Django - and I wrote out the head tunes as well as solos - it was clear that solo licks sprang from chord shapes and chord tones.

So there's a certain amount of hindsight involved in the idea of "soloing from chord tones". I didn't really realise that's what I was doing, because it didn't occur to me to think about it, to conceptualize it in any way. If someone had said to me "hey, you're soloing from chord tones" I'd have replied "really? oh yeah, I suppose I am...is there another way?" :rolleyes:
But I'm probably droning on a bit now lol :D . Yeah, me too - but a good drone is therapeutic once in a while! :)