The Rosetta Stone Of Guitar - reviewed by guitarnoise.com

[garlandpool]

Howdy folks! I just wanted to help promote my instructional DVD-ROM by letting you all know that it just got reviewed by the senior editor at guitarnoise.com and he's very impressed. My approach to music theory is pretty exciting to some people and I really think if more people knew about it, it could really become a phenomenon in its own right. But, don't take my word, just have a look at what others have said. Go to this address and read the review:
http://www.guitarnoise.com/review.php?id=445

You can also read a thread in the forum on it that shares more detail:

http://www.guitarnoise.com/forums/vi...p?f=17&t=39453

Thanks,
Fred

[JazzMick]

some clips would probably sell it faster.

[garlandpool]

Are you talking about video clips? If so, I do have some on the site. You have to click the little TV, then scroll down near the bottom for the free ones. I don't have a big selection of free ones yet, but I'm working on getting more up there.

Although I'm pretty happy with my technique, personally, my method of teaching guitar isn't so much about guitar technique as it is about knowing how to play in key, where every good note is, where every naturally occuring chord is...and then, from that knowledge, knowing how to shift into other scales and keys, etc.

[JonR]

Looks good from the reviews, but this is not about music theory, it's about guitar technique - learning the fretboard.

OK, things like scale and chord names come under "music theory", but this system looks to be all about application. Which - fine as it may be - comes under technique.
(If it was theory, then it would be applicable to any instrument, not just guitar.)

Even so, good luck! Different approaches, well-designed, are always welcome. Sales will prove the value of your system.

[garlandpool]

Hello everyone,

Over the past few months I've been working on developing new materials for teaching music theory as it applies to the guitar and I've finally got a few modules ready for testing. I've decided to just make everything free for now so I can get plenty of people poking around and testing for glitches. So, just help yourself to what I have on the site and if you find any problem areas or have constructive suggestions to make, please just post a reply here and I'll try to get around to fixing it as soon as I can.

http://www.rsoguitar.com

Thanks,
Fred Pool

[garlandpool]

Originally Posted by JonR

If it was theory, then it would be applicable to any instrument, not just guitar.

Well, it does apply to any instrument. Even though it is specifically tailored for the guitar, you can take the same concepts and apply them to other instruments. I have taken it to the piano, banjo, violin/cello/mandolin, clarinet and others (including vocals, like targeting critical notes/accidentals that are invoked by the chords at appropriate moments). At some point I intend to make modules that show you exactly how to do just that.

[Jed]

Just what the guitar world needs, . . more snake oil and hyperbole.

Fred,

I'm sure you believe what you've "discovered" to be revolutionary. You've certainly done a masterful job marketing your approach and your web-design chops are significant.

But there are many more, easier and more powerful ways to learn the fretboard - possibly even in terms of music rather than geometry.

Maybe someday when you are more interested in learning than in making a name for yourself (or earning a buck), you'll be in a position to perceive the "deeper secrets" of music. (hint - they lie in a different direction than where one can go by just repackaging the CAGED system using a pattern-centric approach to the guitar)

cheers,

[SkinnyDevil]

Jed - OUCH!!!

Fred - I gave a listen to a few clips and think I see where you're going. As Jon said, it's always great to see people stretching out and trying new ways of relaying old information. Best of luck in your method.

But allow me to offer a critique for your consideration.

Jed's critique of re-packaging the CAGED system is quite correct, and you have taken to re-packaging quite a bit, it seems. No problem with that on the surface. However, when you re-name key concepts ("papa" instead of "aeolian", for example) with names that lack any connection to the original concept, when you use concept names for position names ("papa/aeolian" for the ONE chord in the natural minor row of chords), when you reject traditional names because (to use your example) you find it confusing to speak of "a minor triad built off the...", and the like, you are not creating a new system, just re-naming (and thus potentially confusing) things within the same system.

This re-naming might work just fine for your students in the short term, but it seems to me it will cause problems for students when they attempt to communicate with other musicians in a variety of amateur, semi-pro, and professional situations.

It seems it will also cause problems should any of these students wish to study guitar at the university level, for example, or teach others.

Another critique of this re-naming system is that I found very little that actually addresses music theory. It just looks like fretboard theory that demonstrates basic chord shapes and the scale shapes that can be played off of those positions. That's cool for what it is, but doesn't allow the student to learn about deeper connections one finds as one journeys on the path of discovery.

On the up-side, I like some of the technique based items (2 column pentatonics and such, if I understand correctly what you mean by that) and the web-site layout is pretty good.

So...not trying to shoot your system down. I just think it needs a bit of tweaking so that your personal areas of concern don't translate in the long-run to deficits for your students. It's always good to shake things up a bit (I'm certainly no traditionalist myself), but be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater when you're making decisions about what you feel are archaic modes of thought.

Just my 2 cents.

[JonR]

I agree with SkinnyDevil.

The site design is good-looking - but maybe TOO good-looking. (An excess of superfluous graphics, and maybe of coding as well: I had some problems with glitching as some pages were loading.)

What I like is the demonstration of the major scale pattern up one string, and showing how it aligns with piano keyboard.
It's a novel idea to show the major scale pattern moving up in 4ths - across the neck - rather than the traditional way of chromatic shifts of the whole pattern one fret at a time (along the neck).
I'm not sure how helpful this is without the inclusion of note names and root positions, however. It could look like just a rather baffling geometric game.

Good idea to include a forum on your site, and good luck on getting it to work... (The "Patterns/Notes" Poll doesn't, for example.)
I do think it's an essential service to offer your customers, and I hope you can keep up with demand...

What I don't like:

1. The "infinite bass". This seems like a too-confusing introduction. I can see (from your perspective) it's an attractive concept, but most beginners are just going to switch off when they see that. What does it have to do with anything? - would be a logical beginner view. (IOW, it may be something you can point out later on, if a student seems intrigued by the geometry and keen on learning that way. But it's peripheral.)

2.

The only thing that stands between you and understanding how to solo freely across the strings are two simple concepts: “Spiral Mapping” and “Jumping”. Spiral Mapping will give you the vision to move vertically across the fret board. Jumping will give you the vision to move horizontally.

This is nonsense - the "only thing"?? What about musical understanding? What about key, melody, phrasing, rhythm?
You are simply talking about negotiating the fretboard. Not "soloing".

BTW, what your call your "eBook" seems a little short at 5 pages, including the fancy cover...

3. The "papa", "mama", "Ysis" "Ybro" etc names. There is no need to introduce new terminology. If students have problems with conventional terms, the answer is to teach the terms properly, not invent new words - which further confuse things.
What's wrong with roman numerals (which is what those words seem designed to replace)?
Personally, as a teacher and musician of some 40 years experience, I have not come across any musical situation where a conventional term is either not sufficient, or can't be adapted in some way.

It's true that metaphors can sometimes be usefully employed - Eg the idea of a "family" for a key and its chords. But that doesn't mean it helps to go from there and attach family type names to chords or scale degree. (Not everyone gets a specific metaphor; sometimes other kinds of metaphors work better. And any metaphor only ever has limited application.)
You may think you are making things simpler but - trust me - you are not.

I do understand that for you your system is "simple" and the traditional one not. Many people (guitarists anyway) have problems with conventional theory, and prefer pattern-based learning. The patterns are there, true. It would be silly not to exploit them in some way.
But they are totally dependent on the EADBGE tuning of guitar. IOW they are arbitrary - no musical significance. They can be a prison as much as a method.

Just to let you know where I'm coming from, I speak as someone who was never confused by music theory. I didn't know much to begin with, of course - only how to read notation. I taught myself guitar from books (mainly songbooks), records, and playing with other musicians. Of course, I picked up the fretboard patterns that exist, and that helped me map the neck. (Maybe it helped that I DIDN'T read any tuition manuals, beyond my very first one, which was short and flawed - slightly misleading but not damagingly so. I never encountered any confusing teaching material, because I never looked at any of any kind!)
I was always focussed on notes, chords and keys - because I worked from songs all the time, not from theory. The rules were there in the songs.

Of course, I began reading theory (seriously about 15 years after first picking up a guitar), and found it fascinating. I didn't understand it all, but the only stuff I had problems with was that which applied to music I also didn't understand (eg classical music) - so I just left that aside. All the theory that addressed rock, blues, pop, folk and jazz made enough sense. Even the Greek mode stuff was OK. Sometimes I found names for sounds I already knew; sometimes I was inspired in new directions, making new connections.

I spotted this quote from you in your forums from a year or so ago:

I have some great ideas that I use all the time, but I can't seem to get very many other guitarists to comprehend them, as simple as they appear to me.

Right! Should give you pause for thought...

(I may take you up on other points in your forums...)

[SkinnyDevil]

Originally Posted by JonR

(1) You are simply talking about negotiating the fretboard. Not "soloing".

(2) The patterns are there, true. It would be silly not to exploit them in some way. But they are totally dependent on the EADBGE tuning of guitar.

Bull's-eye and bull's-eye.