Am I taking it to simple...? Thoughts on patterns, scales and modes.

[hellogoodbye]

Although this topic contains a lot of theory, I thought it belongs in this forum because it's all about practicing patterns. So moderators: feel free to move it to another forum if you thinks it's necessary! ;)

I've been reading various articles on this site about patterns and scales and modes. Pentatonic, major, minor, etc. Some articles go pretty deep to get things done. Like the 'Moving from familiar to the unfamiliar', where you you get an explanation how to 'make' all modes. All kinds of notenames and positions pass and it looks pretty complicated. If you ask me... I also very often read about people actually learning scales at certain position: 'I did the A scale at position 5 end the B at position 2' (or whatever). It all seems quit complicated and it seems you have to learn a LOT of scales and patterns to get things done.

Now I am just starting to learn my fretboard better (high time after playing 25 years without really knowing what I did: usually from musicnotation, or by ear, in which case I really had to practice every note I wanted to play...) and I take an approach which is pretty simple. But after reading all that complicated stuff, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm missing something...

I'm learning myself two things:

1. I divided the fretboard in (as far as I know well-known) 5 patterns: the major scale patterns, keeping a good eye on where the (major) rootnote is.

2. I also learn myself where each and every note is on the fretboard. So if someone says 'Show me an A!' I can point them instantly all over the fretboard. Not just the E-string.

That's it. With this pretty SIMPLE information I can play all major, minor, pentatonic scales. And in every mode. And in every position. No need to shift to another position in order to play another scale. (I never knew people did that!) Pretty simple.

I only have to look at the rootnote in order to know which pattern to play.

Example: I'm playing in C, pattern 1 (in my case), rootnote at fret 8 on hte E-string. Someone says 'Let's go on in scale F' (for whatever reason...). Well, the F is right there below the C, fret 8, at the A-string. And that's the place where the rootnote in (my) pattern 4 is, so I just switch to that pattern. Simple.

And when someone starts to jam in a minor key, I just have to lower the rootnote 2 notes or 'pattern-dots' (or 3 half notes or 3 frets: just call it what you like) in my mind to play the right scale, because the patterns are exactly the same as the major: only the place of the rootnote changes. I only have to put my focus and accents on the right notes. If I was playing in C, pattern 1, rootnote at fret 8, E-string, and we go to Am, I wouldn't even have to change positions and/or pattern at all.

And all this goes for all modes too. Want to play in D Dorian? No problem: just play the C major scale anywhere you want to, but put your focus on the second note (being the 'new' rootnote).
To use the same C example: just use the next note in the pattern as the rootnote. From C major (using the same old 8th fret example) to B Phrygian? No problem. Phrygian is the third mode: count to notes back en you get G. So B Phrygian is derived from the G Major (or G ionian) scale. The G is right there at fret 10, one string lower (or should I say higher), the A-string. I can play pattern 3 or 4 (in my case) from that position and I'm on the road. Of course once more paying attention to the right notes.
In fact, if I play all my five patterns in a row, starting each one on the E-string, I can play in all modes without thinking! (Note: my first and thirs patterns 'share' modes: for instance pattern 1 started on the first note results in playing the phrigian mode, starting on the second note results in playing the lydian mode.)

Using the pentatonic mode is easy too: just leave out notes 4 (one fret afternote 3) and 7 (one fret before the rootnote). Advantage of learning the major scales here is that you can easily learn to play in the pentatonic mode, while you aren't restricted to it: you can know where the extra notes are. The other way around is quit harder!

And even the blues scale is (quit) easy to learn: just add a sharp 4th (or flat 5th) and your done.

Hm, after reading this once more and seeing hoe much words I needed, it may not look so simple after all (I mean: you HAVE to know a little theory...!), but my point is: by learning just 5 patterns you can play all major scales, minor scales, all modes, etc. etc.

Mind you (maybe I should have said this earlier): I'm no jazz player: I usually play rock over pretty straight chords.

I know I haven't covered the harmonic modes and that kind of stuff. But I think for a beginner my 'method' is a pretty solid and easy method. Or (as I said before, and which is the main reason for this post...) am I missing something...?

P.S. I suddenly realize now that I haven't read every article on this site yet, so if I'm telling something you all already know... SORRY! ;)

P.S. 2 Mind you: I\m still LEARNING this all myself! It's really just an idea that I have in my mind and I think it will work. But if you think it WON'T work, please tell me! That's why I posted it! ;)

[phantom]

theoratically you are totally right.

you can look at it that way:

in western music you have 12 different notes. from these notes all the scales are created. just a matter of where the whole and the halfsteps are according to a root note.
since you have these 12 notes several times on the fretboard its possible to play the thereoff created scales (modes etc.) in every position.

i think the reason you get confused is that you have been playing for quite a while and have a different approach to this stuff compared to someone who is totally new to the guitar.

its easy to say "play a major scale, take the 3rd as a root and you get phrygian" - but someone who is new to scales and modes will say: "phrygiwhat? and what do i need it for", and he will be glad managing to play a Cmajor scale in two positions.

next thing is that its not possible to play everything you want to in just one position. in one position you have a tone range from a bit over two octaves. a guitar (24 frets) has 4 octaves - and its fun to use them!
Plus every C (for example) played on the fretboard sounds slightly different - but i guess you know that..

hope i didn't make it too complicated
:)

p.s.: 5 mjor scale patterns? you have seven different notes in a major scale - so that would give you 7 notes to start with. makes 7 patterns.

[EricV]

p.s.: 5 mjor scale patterns? you have seven different notes in a major scale - so that would give you 7 notes to start with. makes 7 patterns.

Theoretically, you´re correct. But in general, people tend to use only 5 patterns... that´s what I was taught first, too. Those are closely related to the 5 pentatonic patterns.
7 patterns are used when you think in 3NPS... so, most people will refer to 5 major or minor patterns, 5 pentatonic patterns, and 7 longform- or 3NPS-patterns...
The "regular ones" ( as opposed to 3NPS-patterns ) are pictured below
Eric

[phantom]

haven't seen them for a while...;)

and i think they are not userfriendly at all. playing and theorywise (seems more logical to have 7 notes and 7 patterns).
imho the old "5 pattern scales" should rest their life at a campfire;)

[EricV]

They might not be user-friendly, but I think it depends on the player who uses them... a lot of guys still use these patterns, and a creative mind probably can get something out of every kind of pattern.
As a matter of fact, I think Petrucci used one of these patterns in "Rock Discipline" when he talked about speeding up with a metronome... didn´t look "user-un-friendly" to me when he shredded through it :)
I didn´t post them to promote them or anything. It´s just that they´re the patterns that are taught the most by guitar-teachers, they´re pretty much a standard.

Anyway, the problem with those is the same as with 3nps-patterns. You don´t wanna get stuck within them. Meaning that using patterns is great, but you need to be able to get beyond those to avoid becoming what Brett Garsed used to call a "three-note-per-string"-player...
So once you feel comfortable with patterns ( or maybe even before that ), you wanna work on arps, scales-along-one-string etc.
Rambling on and on... :)
Eric

[phantom]

you're right eric..

you should look at scales as notecombinations and the best thing would be to play them in every possible way. to make a shortcut the "scaleboxes" are made to make it easier to learn all the notes.

its just seems funny to tell someone to learn them for weeks and month just to let them go.
:rolleyes: ´
but thats how it works. its just a step towards seeing it as a complete thing where you can move freely from A to B.

so... hellogoodbye - what do you think?

[hellogoodbye]

Originally posted by phantom
i think the reason you get confused is that you have been playing for quite a while and have a different approach to this stuff compared to someone who is totally new to the guitar.

its easy to say "play a major scale, take the 3rd as a root and you get phrygian" - but someone who is new to scales and modes will say: "phrygiwhat? and what do i need it for", and he will be glad managing to play a Cmajor scale in two positions.

First of all: I didn't get confused: I thought the reader might get confused. ;)
But your right: for a newbie this is probably already to complicated...

next thing is that its not possible to play everything you want to in just one position. in one position you have a tone range from a bit over two octaves. a guitar (24 frets) has 4 octaves - and its fun to use them!
Plus every C (for example) played on the fretboard sounds slightly different - but i guess you know that..

I'm not saying it's good to stick to a position! On the contrary! I only gave those examples because a lot of people who only know one (or maybe two) patterns are stuck to a certain position. If they play in C and want to go to E they HAVE to go to a different position inorder fot the same pattern to work. In the case from C to E they have to slide up 4 frets. When yo learn all 5 patterns you can stay on your position if you want to, no matter what mode or scale you are in. But at the same time you have the freedom to go anywhere because you can! With only one patterns this all was impossible.

hope i didn't make it too complicated
:)
You certainly didn't! ;)

p.s.: 5 mjor scale patterns? you have seven different notes in a major scale - so that would give you 7 notes to start with. makes 7 patterns.

Eric already explained this... The pictures he posted are exactly the ones I use!
But to make sure no one gets confused...: I have them in a different order! So don't get my examples wrong (with pattern 1, the scale of C on the 8th fret...). I found out later Eric's order is indeed the usual order. I got them in 'modes-order': somehow it all seemed more logic to me. My first pattern (Eric's 4 pattern) is the ionan mode (starting with the second note of the pattern). If you play Eric's pattern 4, 5, 1, 2 and 3 in a row you will be playing all modes without thinking (though you have to play two patterns twice starting on the first and second pattern. But this is getting far too complicated, so forget about it... ;) )

Originally posted by EricV
Anyway, the problem with those is the same as with 3nps-patterns. You don´t wanna get stuck within them. Meaning that using patterns is great, but you need to be able to get beyond those to avoid becoming what Brett Garsed used to call a "three-note-per-string"-player...
So once you feel comfortable with patterns ( or maybe even before that ), you wanna work on arps, scales-along-one-string etc.
Rambling on and on... :)
Eric [/B]
Yeah, I didn't mention that (I only wanted to know if my method was good or not) but when I practice these patterns, I ALWAYS go from one to another in a smooth way! I DO often play them one by one for some time up and down but I ALWAYS connect them. I usually decide, while I'm playing a certain pattern on which string I'll go to the next one, so I won't be stuck with the same transitions everytime. I also frequently 'skip' a pattern.
All in all, I always tell myself to look at it as ONE BIG patterns which is divided in order to make learning it easier (that's what I call user-frienly! ;) ). But it's my ultimate goal to be able to play the whole 12 frets pattern just as easy as I'm playing a single small pattern now!

In the end, I hope, this will enable me to play ALL over the fretboard, anywhere I want to, without having to think 'Oh dear, which fret can or can't I use here...'

Mind you, I've still got a long way to go... I mean, I know the (small) patterns by heart now, but not the big pattern. I quit often forget where I was and which pattern I can play at a certain point (specially when I went up and down through some patterns quickly). And I still want to learn (for instance) which note is II, III, IV and so on, compared to the root note. Or which note is on the 8 fret of the G-string. I do know it all, of course, but not quickly enough: I still have to think about it.

So... phantom - that's what I think about it! ;)

[phantom]

i'm sorry if we (i) had a misunderstanding there hellogoodbye..

[hellogoodbye]

Originally posted by phantom
i'm sorry if we (i) had a misunderstanding there hellogoodbye..
Oops! Oh dear! There is nothing for you to feel sorry about! If I sounded a bit harsh somewhere (apparently I did, otherwise you would'nt say sorry!) it's just because English isn't my native language (I'm Dutch) and I sometimes don't know how to express myself.... (I even don't know for certain if 'harsh' is the right word here... Really hope it is! ;))

[grappa]

Can I ask another question as I have struggled to learn this stuff for years and years :(

My problem is not theoretical as I have known modal theory, studied counterpoint, 4 part etc for a long time. My problem is one of real time comprehension and use.

I would ask if anyone could answer the following questions about the contents of their mind whilst improvising:

Do you see the pattern in which you are playing complete from bottom to top string or do you see the fragment of notes around the location of the finger touching the string i.e. just the scale notes around your present finger position?

Do you visualise the note relationship i.e. if in D dorian do you see the pattern as 1 2 b3 etc?

Do you maintain a comprehension of note value i.e. 'D' Do you use this when traversing through changes?

The problem I seem to have is that playing through chord changes leaves absolutely no time for analysis on a conscious level. Trying to remeber that the next chord is the 6th diatonically, better use Aolean, where is the nearest root note, better still where is the nearest leading or link note, now imagine the shape and try and viualise the interval values i.e. b3 and play - oops we have already moved through two more changes :)

Simon

[grappa]

Oh I missed one thing out - one I have calculated I need Aolean I have then got to work out that its C Major shapes and move roots values and other intervals accordingly :)

[szulc]

Do you see the pattern in which you are playing complete from bottom to top string or do you see the fragment of notes around the location of the finger touching the string i.e. just the scale notes around your present finger position? I usually 'see' a pattern complete from bottom to top string, I also usually see patterns below and above the current one.Do you visualise the note relationship i.e. if in D dorian do you see the pattern as 1 2 b3 etc? I believe this to be the ideal method, although I am not always able to do this in a manner that I would call complete.Do you maintain a comprehension of note value i.e. 'D' Do you use this when traversing through changes? To me this is the least useful method because you need to care about actual note values when relative note values are enough.

[Bongo Boy]

THIS is a cool thread. Thanks to everyone for sharing--very, very thought-provoking.

[metaljustice83]

I need to go back to learning these scales....QUICK!!!

[hellogoodbye]

Originally posted by szulc Do you maintain a comprehension of note value i.e. 'D' Do you use this when traversing through changes?
To me this is the least useful method because you need to care about actual note values when relative note values are enough.
Your other answers are exactly mine. But in this case I think you misunderstood the question: I think grappa meant if you maintain comprehension of the D being the rootnote! (Correct me if I'm wrong...) And that should always be the fact. It's the most important note. I mean, I still have a LONG LONG way to go before I instantly know which note is II and VI and so on in every pattern. But knowing and keeping an eye on the root note is essential and the base of it all. Specially if you got through changes! I change and plan patterns all on the knowledge of the rootnote.

Mind you, it's still mainly theory in my case: I've still got a long way to go. I'll be very happy the day I can play all patterns as ONE big pattern, knowing where all notes are relative (I, II, III, IV, etc) to the root note in major (ionian mode). But I think it will be a long long long time before I instantly know where all notes are relative to G myxolidian. For instance...

And then I'm not even talking about the technique that's needed to actually PLAY it all smooth and fast... ;)

[szulc]

What I meant was that I don't care what the note is called, to me that is one too many things to think about that has no benefit.
I just know which note it is by sound and where I play it and I don't really care if it is called D or Db (which the way I tune it is).
If I am learning new Chord Changes for the first time I'll transpose everything until I get the change from a note de-referenced point of view. In general if you have a lot of experiance playing different chord changes, you will have a pretty good feel for where things are going and since most changes are cycle 4 or 5 or some kind of third or second motion you should have a pretty good bag of tricks to use over these. But you shouldn't get hung up on what key it is in and what the root of every chord or scale is. You should just have an idea about the progression and be able to navigate the chord changes of that particular progression no matter what key it starts in.

[szulc]

On learning the fretboard I believe you should learn the natural note names and the pattern that this makes on the fretboard.
That would be equivalent to the white keys on the piano.
Then from anywhere within this whole neck pattern you should be able to transpose to any other major scale by altering the correct notes. To do this in a de-referenced way you need to know the interval number for each note. Then applying some cycle 5/4 knowledge you can come up with a way to alter certain notes to move a given interval from your root.
I have written an article about this:
http://www.ibreathemusic.com/play/article/109

[hellogoodbye]

Well, I do agree that would be the perfect way to learn and do it all, but somehow I got the feeling I'll never be able to do it that way... To me it seems this wil always require too much thinking...
I will be very happy if I am able to learn the 'big pattern' and know where every note on the fretboard is, so I can play that big pattern all over the fretboard: this wil enable me to play in every possible key from every position.

But I have to say that if you CAN learn your method it somehow seems to me you are more 'free' because you are not stuck in that pattern, even though in the end you will be playing this pattern anway. If you know what I mean. All in all it´s just a matter of how you look at it: you still will be playing the same notes: in the end I see al my patterns in your method. You just get there by another way. Which looks more dificult to me.

Maybe it's just a lack of selfconfidence...?

[hellogoodbye]

Originally posted by szulc
On learning the fretboard I believe you should learn the natural note names and the pattern that this makes on the fretboard.
That would be equivalent to the white keys on the piano.
Then from anywhere within this whole neck pattern you should be able to transpose to any other major scale by altering the correct notes. To do this in a de-referenced way you need to know the interval number for each note. Then applying some cycle 5/4 knowledge you can come up with a way to alter certain notes to move a given interval from your root.
I have written an article about this:
http://www.ibreathemusic.com/play/article/109
O, wait a minute! I suddenly understand what you mean! I just didn't get (or read...) it right! I've seen the light! ;)

I was thinking too much about the patterns. I though you said something like: you should learn the patterns and the names of the notes on the fretboard SEPERATE. But you mean it the other way around. Well, that was how I was doing it. I am learning to play the patterns without paying attention to the position: I only watched where the rootnote was (being the roman I numerical, not a D or F or B). I was also learning to know where all notes are on the fretboard. After learning this all I thought I would be able to play a certain pattern one certain fret in the desired key by combining this knowledge.

But now I know what you mean! I didn't really get what you meant by natural note names (probably because English is not my native language...). You mean I should learn the position of every C D E F G A and B on the fretboard and see and learn the pattern they form. This is exactly my 'big pattern' but you don't move it: you glue it to the fretboard in such a way that tey contain all natural note names!
This method is opposite to mine. I though it was better NOT to glue the big pattern on the fretboard and shift it when necessary.

Anyway, if you do it your way and if you know exactly where the big pattern is AND you know all it's note names (C D E F G A B) you are indeed in the same position as a piano player: you know all the white keys!
If you want to play in F a piano player knows he just have to play the most right black key of the three black keys instead of the B. And if a guitar playes knows his 'white keys' he will also know which note to lower instantly.

Sorry for repeating all your info again but I a learning as I write and trying to find out if I got it now.

Nice thing is that learning that big patterns becomes easier now because the position doesn't change anymore! You don't have to think about moving the patterns up and down and you don't have to be afraid that you forget which pattern you were playing on which position. There is only ONE pattern glued to ONE position! And is also will be easier to learn ALL notenames on the fretboard: you will only need to learn the natural ones and the rest can be found through these.

The fact remains that you will actually be playing the big pattern in another position when you change key, but you just look at in in another way: you get there is a more musical and 'cleaner' way.

Another thing that got me confused was your remark in your article that most players use the root note on the low E string. The thing was that I didn't do that in my 'method'. I could (eventually) play any pattern in any position, because I (would) know every note on the fretboard. So I could place the rootnote on any string. Anyway, this made me think your method wasn't for me...!

Sorry for talking and typing so much but I'm very happy I suddenly know what you mean now! It suddenly dawned on me!And maybe my abundance of words can help some others too to get a clearer sight on your method. Although I wonder if someone really know what I mean... ;)

I'm going to read all you articles on the subject now AND I'm going to learn the 'big glued pattern' (hm, that's a nice name for it BTW ;) ).

Well, I'm not saying it will be easy: maybe my method is still easier in some way (...?), but as I said in my previous post: this SEEMS to give you a more free feeling and now I know what I meant by that myself. ;) I'm really curious if I will be able to quickly go from C to E after I've learned the big pattern! Will it require a lot of thinking or not? How quickly will I be able to do it? Will it even work for me...?

I'll let you know!

[szulc]

I really am advocating both the big glued pattern method and movable patterns method.
I believe that the big pattern should be learned first and then apply the ideas in my "speaking in tongues" chapter of my article to create the other modes or keys from it. The beauty of this is you learn the key changes in a de-referenced way. Then you use this information to allow you to move the big pattern around as you change keys. The article "Alternate View" is really trying to get at this. It is a very difficult thing to explain, but I believe that I have succeded. It is up to the reader to ask questions or re-read until the epiphany happens. Similar ideas can be used to learn the chord progressions themselves in a de-referenced way.

Eventually you change keys using a combination of these ideas. When you get this idea working for you then you can use the 'speaking in tongues' ideas to change keys from any big pattern to any other big pattern in a different key by memorizing the relationships in the table.

So to go up a major 3rd from any key just make sure you raise the 4th, 1st, 5th and 2nd (notice how thes follow the cycle 5?).


I believe that too many guitarists are locked up in visual patterns of different scales and such. Usually bounded by position and in the whole learned as 'Modes' from the root on the low E string.
So I was attempting to give the readers the opportunity to look at this from a different perspective.

[hellogoodbye]

Originally posted by szulc
I really am advocating both the big glued pattern method and movable patterns method.
I also came to this conclusion pretty quick today: the both complement each other (if that is the right word...). Knowing both methods is the best. (I really like the phrase 'big glued pattern'! ;) )

It's still pretty complicated stuff for me though, but I'm getting closer and closer.

One remark about the Alternative view article though (to make things a bit less difficult for newcomers...)!

At the end of page one you say:
'(Remember the Speaking in Tongues post?) Speaking in Tongues' The last three words are a link.

But... just underneath that there is a link with the exact same words towards the next page of the article.

Well, the thing is: I never clicked the first link until just a few minute ago because I thought it would lead to the same page! They stand so close to each other and have the same name so I thought they WERE the same!

I only found out just now that the first link leads to the actual forum topic. And this topic is VERY important! I didn't understand the 'picture' at the top of the Speaking in Tongues PAGE at all! But now I've read the Speaking in Tongues TOPIC and I now know how to look at it (the 'I' is the centre of it all!)

Although it still is a bit difficult, the topic has helped me a lot further. You didn't mention it in your article for nothing of course!

Anyway, you might consider changing the text of the article in such a way that those two links are clearly different! So no one will think they are the same and therefor miss the forum topic, which is pretty essential.

Just an idea... ;)

P.S. On page two there is the following sentence:

'To move up to the root in the left column, flat/lower the scale degees listed on the right.'

Shouldn't it be easier or more clear to say (or shouldn't it be):

To move down to the root in the left column, flat/lower the scale degees listed on the right.

P.S. 2 You might want to add some stuff from the topic to the article, so reading the forum topic isn't mandatory anymore on order to grasp it all. For instance, placing the the following quote from you on top of page 2 might clear things up a lot (I made the sentence that was most important to me bold):

'Following the columns up or down gives you the cycle.
One number gives you the cycle inteval moving up the column and the other down the column.
The row that starts with I is your starting reference.
This can also give you the information about which notes to raise or lower to move from one key to any other key, by any interval jump. Several of these are not complete cycles, because they are an even number of half steps apart.'

Mind you: I'm not trying to tell you how to write articles! But as you said it's quit difficult to explain. And seeing how difficult I had it, being new to it all, until I read the forum topic, these changes to the article might make it all easier for other newbies like me. Once again, I'm just sharing my thoughts... ;)

[szulc]

To move down to the root in the left column, flat/lower the scale degees listed on the right.

Actually this is what I wanted to say, because intervals are always named from lower note to higher note and the chart is giving the interval to the new root therfore up a M3 or m3 etc...

At the time I wrote this article there was some discussion about this on the board so I felt like there was some history behind it and it would be explored by those who were interested.

I am glad you have taken my article seriously and am appreciative of your comments. I may look at the article and discuss some changes with Guni.

[szulc]

One thing in the "Alternate View" Article the is subtle is might be missed by the casual reader is in the last two pages where I am using cycle 4 and then cycle 5 to move through key changes. In the cycle 4 part I am referecning everything back to C major, so the notes that are changed are always mentioned as the nth degree of C major("THE BIG GLUED PATTERN"). In the Cycle 5 part I am moving the reference every time to the new key center, so every note that is changed is referenced back only to the current key center("MOVEABLE BIG PATTERN").