3 notes per string revisited

[wadester]

To me (unless I'm practicing scales) 3nps and Box form (3nps on most string 2nps on others) are completely interchangeable. There are times when I want a more fluid sound I might use 3nps but I could most likely get the same effect with box form most of the time. There was a time when I was all about the box form (15 years ago) however as my understanding of the fretboard grew I tried to get rid of that bias.

The point I'm trying to make is that its not that one or the other that is better or worse they are just different techniques that need to be learned and applied. Also if you are going through the trouble of learning 3nps patterns you might also want to try some less used, but sometimes useful, fingerings such as: 2nps, 4nps, and single string scale techniques. You can get an idea of how these techniques work in this Guitar Scale Lesson.

BTW if any of you are wondering how to play these 3nps scale patterns or the box patterns for any Major, Natural Minor, or Harmonic Minor key check out my Scales in Tab application it should be helpful.

guitar scale lesson.ok.doesnt seem to show 3nps on (2 adjacent strings) at a time, from open position all the way to the 12th.e-a,then a-d;d-g;g-b;b-e,it breaks down the parallel sense other mode patterns visually easier i think,like this way you see mixolydian,ionian,appearing the same,a aeolian mirror image to b locrian,those 4 easy to recall! now 3 odd patterns,d dorian half a minor the rest a major pattern.f lydian part major,part locrian,finally,(dark)phrygian,half locian,half minor,now this again ,looking at the modes 3nps in 6 note patterns .2 adjacent string groups.this system helped myself learn the fret board rather quickly.might work for you.if anyones got a better idea please fill me in..

[Darkman]

It would be very handy indeed, except there is no such thing as mode forms. There are multiple forms / fingerings of the major scale dependent on the position on the neck. But those are not mode forms - they are just the various major scale fingering patterns. . . . nothing to do with modes . . . not even a little to do with modes. Did I mention that those forms have nothing to do with the modes?

Hmm so why are those box patterns labelled as modes? My "guesstimate" was that each mode depends on which note you begin the scale on, and those box patterns each had their first scale note linked to each relevant mode.

So that was totally wrong? Why are those box shapes labelled as modes then?


disclaimer - obviously I know nothing about modes.....

[wadester]

Hmm so why are those box patterns labelled as modes? My "guesstimate" was that each mode depends on which note you begin the scale on, and those box patterns each had their first scale note linked to each relevant mode.

So that was totally wrong? Why are those box shapes labelled as modes then?


disclaimer - obviously I know nothing about modes.....

in theroy they shouldnt be called that way of looking at them as.(part modes) broken down in fragments,just trying to visually make things look simple,the big picture of modes on the entire fret board,and its locations.its just another method on maping the fretboard approach.guess thats the theroy, a grape,when dehydraded is called a raisin!!

[Mike7771]

Darkman - Thanks man, yeah this is my site so I was the creator of everything on there.

It would be very handy indeed, except there is no such thing as mode forms. There are multiple forms / fingerings of the major scale dependent on the position on the neck. But those are not mode forms - they are just the various major scale fingering patterns. . . . nothing to do with modes . . . not even a little to do with modes. Did I mention that those forms have nothing to do with the modes?

cheers,

Jed - Technically speaking I totally accept and understand what you are saying here.... That being said, I don't think it is that outrageous to LABEL the fingering after the mode that would start from a given root note i.e. if I am starting on the 5th scale degree to label the fingering as "Mixolydian fingering". I would go so far as to say that this naming convention may even help students as it is easier to remember something once you have named it...

So yes, you are right, scale fingerings have nothing to do with modes but does it really matter? I mean if my student learns all the fingerings on that page and plays them for me I'm not going to get bent out of shape if he calls the 2nd fingering Dorian. Hell, he can call it "Bob" for all I care... as long as he learns the fingering.

I really don't want to turn this into a mode discussion as we all know how long and drawn out those can be... For those of you interested in knowing my take on understanding modes please read my post Understanding Modes on GKN.

[Jed]

Hmm so why are those box patterns labelled as modes? My "guesstimate" was that each mode depends on which note you begin the scale on, and those box patterns each had their first scale note linked to each relevant mode.

So that was totally wrong? Why are those box shapes labelled as modes then?

disclaimer - obviously I know nothing about modes.....

Sorry, I don't have the time or the language skills to adequately define what modes are and are not in a forum like this. But I can confirm that the fingering patterns that are listed as modes @ the link are in fact just alternate major scale fingering patterns. There is no such thing as scale forms related to modes because the same major scale fingering forms (5>7>12 variations depending on the system you chose) also work as fingering forms for each of the seven modes. That is "any scale pattern that works for a major scale - also works for any of the modes".

It's a common error, and it's the kind of disinformation that is widely dispersed around the 'net. But it's absolutely hogwash. Do yourself a favor and learn the various fingering patterns of the major scale for multiple keys before you even attempt to tackle modes. When you think you are ready for modes, learn how to see each of the seven modes inside of every single major scale fingering pattern. Do that for all of the major scale fingering patterns of your chosen system - and you'll have a much more accurate idea of what modes are.

cheers,

[Jed]

So yes, you are right, scale fingerings have nothing to do with modes but does it really matter? I mean if my student learns all the fingerings on that page and plays them for me I'm not going to get bent out of shape if he calls the 2nd fingering Dorian. Hell, he can call it "Bob" for all I care... as long as he learns the fingering.

Mike,

Some people feel like you do, that it's no big deal to lead someone down a path that will confuse them for years to come. Since I have nothing to sell, I have nothing standing between me and my convictions. I have nothing to gain and nothing to lose either way.

A better and less dangerous approach would be to name the forms according to the lowest note in the sequence. Anything but mode names.

On the other hand, I no longer work for the theory police. So I have no authority to throw people into theory jail. But I still own my opinions. I just prefer that those that actually know the difference - do their best to help correct some of the common disinformation that many throw around with such reckless abandon. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe we have a responsibility to correct what is wrong. "First, do no harm" and all that. YMMV

cheers,

[wadester]

Mike,

Some people feel like you do, that it's no big deal to lead someone down a path that will confuse them for years to come. Since I have nothing to sell, I have nothing standing between me and my convictions. I have nothing to gain and nothing to lose either way.

A better and less dangerous approach would be to name the forms according to the lowest note in the sequence. Anything but mode names.

On the other hand, I no longer work for the theory police. So I have no authority to throw people into theory jail. But I still own my opinions. I just prefer that those that actually know the difference - do their best to help correct some of the common disinformation that many throw around with such reckless abandon. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe we have a responsibility to correct what is wrong. "First, do no harm" and all that. YMMV

cheers,

funny! your a funny guy... not a lot of humour on this site,its seems the majority of these forum users over ride ,with long drawn out, theory ,formulas. i mean it serves its purpose.there are simpler theory approaches to learning fundamentals of the fingerboard,im sure!music as far as i go is breaking rules.the basic structure has to be followed,and a lot doesnt.too much theroy can rob your playing of creativity,through my experiences anyhow... i guess i'll be one of the first to go to theory jail!i hear they brainwash,with arnold schoenberg-twelve-tone row composition,along with lydian chromatic concept of tonal oganization theory,followed with shock treatment...

[gersdal]

i guess i'll be one of the first to go to theory jail!i hear they brainwash,with arnold schoenberg-twelve-tone row composition,along with lydian chromatic concept of tonal oganization theory,followed with shock treatment...

There has been a lot of discussions on this forum on learning theory versus playing what comes naturally (and ignoring theory). I think the concensus is that both are good.

A few quotes:
Poparad: Music theory basically takes the guess work out of writting music, so you can spend more time and energy on picking which of the right notes you like better than trying to which which note doesn't sound wrong.

Malcom: Music theory lets musicians talk to each other in specific terms.

Biblio: Theory is just a way of ordering knowledge. Your ears should guide you and provide the ideas, the theory will simply help you to ensure that these ideas bear fruit.

Me: Music theory is a benefit we have so that we do not need to learn by trial and error again and again each time we try to make music. You may choose to take this benefit, or you may not. Your choice.

[NG7]

This is wonderful! Where did all these people come from?

[wadester]

There has been a lot of discussions on this forum on learning theory versus playing what comes naturally (and ignoring theory). I think the concensus is that both are good.

A few quotes:
Poparad: Music theory basically takes the guess work out of writting music, so you can spend more time and energy on picking which of the right notes you like better than trying to which which note doesn't sound wrong.

Malcom: Music theory lets musicians talk to each other in specific terms.

Biblio: Theory is just a way of ordering knowledge. Your ears should guide you and provide the ideas, the theory will simply help you to ensure that these ideas bear fruit.

Me: Music theory is a benefit we have so that we do not need to learn by trial and error again and again each time we try to make music. You may choose to take this benefit, or you may not. Your choice.

i totally agree with what your saying, its just, my theory approach probably differs from most.hey!all the theory,players that need it,im a 43 year player,i do what works for me musically,ive never had complaints from my musical audiance.i just think in jazz,classical,(some)not all approaches ,to learning these species of music can be learnt in a shorter span than it should take.and besides im 50 years old.im not going spend the rest,playing scales,arps.intervals,in 12 keys,plus chord progressions,then harmony,and voicings,did i forget one! i myslf think; learn the fingerboard .like the back of your hand.i mean you see the whole layout in your minds eye!this is first,for guitarists,beginners to advance,the most,very most important area. (know), your fingerboard,like your girlfriend.then the theroy comes much simpler,hey,i know 20,30,40 year players dont know the fingerboard,and they shy away from theroy .they cant to locate an a# all over the fretboard , (go figure )theres a system to mastering the fretboard thats so simple.i know it!thats all.....

[gersdal]

learn the fingerboard .like the back of your hand.i mean you see the whole layout in your minds eye!

Agree. The wet dream of every guitarist, I'm sure .

[Jed]

Agree. The wet dream of every guitarist, I'm sure .

. . . and no small task.

[wadester]

. . . and no small task.

we'll leave the small task,for cowboy chord players only!!!! ...

[shredlogic]

There has been a lot of discussions on this forum on learning theory versus playing what comes naturally (and ignoring theory). I think the concensus is that both are good.

A few quotes:
Poparad: Music theory basically takes the guess work out of writting music, so you can spend more time and energy on picking which of the right notes you like better than trying to which which note doesn't sound wrong.

Malcom: Music theory lets musicians talk to each other in specific terms.

Biblio: Theory is just a way of ordering knowledge. Your ears should guide you and provide the ideas, the theory will simply help you to ensure that these ideas bear fruit.

Me: Music theory is a benefit we have so that we do not need to learn by trial and error again and again each time we try to make music. You may choose to take this benefit, or you may not. Your choice.

Well said. I like to spend time learning, but also time to just randomly mess around. My theory knowledge tends to help me develop what I come up with in both scenarios.

Your comment about theory letting you focus on the "right" notes instead of avoiding the wrong notes is definitely accurate. I've seen a lot of players overly impressed by something they wrote simply because it took so long to write, because they had to hunt and peck for the right notes. To me, it kind of seems like trying to speak a language by putting letters together randomly. You might eventually say something that makes sense, but how expressive can you be? That said, some people do truly amaze me with their "playing by ear" composing abilities. However, the ones I've seen don't seem to do well with improvisation.

[ragasaraswati]

Three-notes-per string patterns can be a pain in the a** only cause of this one thing:

g-------------3--5--7----]
d----3--5--7-------------]

Familiar?

Well I don't know about you but I try to avoid this shape because I feel I am overworking double-time. Even more so when they occur in the first few positions or at the high register.

Also, I like playing semitones in adjascent strings. Semitones have distant relationships in the harmonic spectra and what better effect than to exemplify that by playing each at different strings so that they have more diverse voicings as opposed to playing them side by side at the same string.

PS: I just realised I contradicted myself.