CAGED - the good, the bad and the ugly?

Lewy

CaseOfAce said:

Rocker said:

Good Lord!  I read some of the replies and my brain is frazzled. This subject is overthinking on a grand scale. It is important to remember that we are playing music not studying rocket science. Music that should be fun to play. Not a subject that requires detailed in-depth study. I will look at the video later. And hope my brain can cope.......

I think you've got a valid point in there Rocker - I wouldn't go so far as to state it was over-thinking..but in some ways I agree. If you get too bogged down in the "how" / theory of why something works it can lead to adhering to strict rules of using the only the "correct" chords in a key when writing songs or using the "correct" scales when improvising solos - and you end up missing out on those happy accidents that leads to interesting music (Keith Richards says when he was jamming at home he'd make a "mistake" and come up with a song as a result...).

Cobain made some wonderful stuff using a collection of ham-fisted power chords (that intro to Lithium with that vocal line over the top !) - but by the same token Mike Stern doesn't seem to have been hamstrung by the rules of theory as regards his creativity - and in his case knowing the how and why of soloing over diminished chords is probably a useful skill to have.

Dunno.. I'm still trying to figure all this out myself.

I think the happy balance to be struck is this: acquire the theory, technique and vocabulary you need to play the music you want, and there shouldn't be any upper or lower limits to that. Some people can get by solely on vocabulary because that's all the musical settings they create for themselves require. Others want to create their own vocabulary and for that you need theoretical knowledge and the means to execute it.

kelpbeds

These might help. They are the main diagrams I used when  explaining CAGED to students. One is major and one minor.
The empty circles represent the chord, all the circles represent the penatonic scale and the green notes are the additional notes to add to create the full major or minor scale. This way you can see the layers in CAGED.

sev112

Neither CAGED, nor 3 notes per string, not probably other systems, are theories - they are empirical consequences of the intervals between adjacent strings in EADGBE “space”.

personally I tend to use the logic of 3nps far more as it is more interval based, and when you start using different tunings, then I find that approach far more adaptable than CAGED patterns.  I also prefer 3nps because I can play in any mode in any key from any note on the fretboard 

but CAGED is an excellent representation of a lot of concepts and extremely useful 

Benm39

Really useful and clear video @kelpbeds ;  thanks for posting

stratman3142

@kelpbeds that's how I would think if I wanted to visualise the Aeolian mode (minor) built on the minor pentatonic and the Ionian mode built on the major pentatonic.

I like your term 'see the layers in CAGED'.

So, as you show in your diagrams, the Aeolian mode is the minor pentatonic with the added (green) notes being the 2 and b6.

And the Ionian mode is the major pentatonic with the added (green) notes being the 4 and 7.

And, as I'm sure you already know:

The Mixolydian mode is the major pentatonic with the added notes being the 4 and the b7.

The Lydian mode is the major pentatonic with the added notes being the #4 and 7.

The Dorian mode is the minor pentatonic with the added notes being the 2 and 6.

The Phrygian mode is the minor pentatonic with the added notes being the b2 and b6.

The framework I often use in rock/blues soloing is the minor pentatonic combined with the major pentatonic, with an added b5. I can visualise that built from a CAGED pentatonic framework. But there might (for example) be 4nps (or more) so I'm not sure that describing things in terms of 3nps would fit.

C,A,G,E,D are the labels for orientating things on the fretboard. I focus on the red empty circles (root note octave patterns) in your diagrams to name the shapes as C, A, G, E or D, rather than the full 1,3,5 (major) or 1, b3,5 (minor) chords.

roberty

CaseOfAce said:

Rocker said:

Good Lord!  I read some of the replies and my brain is frazzled. This subject is overthinking on a grand scale. It is important to remember that we are playing music not studying rocket science. Music that should be fun to play. Not a subject that requires detailed in-depth study. I will look at the video later. And hope my brain can cope.......

I think you've got a valid point in there Rocker - I wouldn't go so far as to state it was over-thinking..but in some ways I agree. If you get too bogged down in the "how" / theory of why something works it can lead to adhering to strict rules of using the only the "correct" chords in a key when writing songs or using the "correct" scales when improvising solos - and you end up missing out on those happy accidents that leads to interesting music (Keith Richards says when he was jamming at home he'd make a "mistake" and come up with a song as a result...).

Cobain made some wonderful stuff using a collection of ham-fisted power chords (that intro to Lithium with that vocal line over the top !) - but by the same token Mike Stern doesn't seem to have been hamstrung by the rules of theory as regards his creativity - and in his case knowing the how and why of soloing over diminished chords is probably a useful skill to have.

Dunno.. I'm still trying to figure all this out myself.

Theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, it describes what is there, but it doesn't tell you what to do and what not to do. Often when you analyse the work of someone who doesn't know music theory you'll find that they follow some basic rules 

Cobain's vocal melodies contain a lot of thirds and sixths, filling in chord information that is missing from the guitar. This is one of the things that makes them pop. You can find these notes instinctively, but knowing the theory can help you to quickly identify and audition them

I'd argue the opposite, that knowing the rules empowers you to more readily break them :-)

guitarjack66

roberty said:

CaseOfAce said:

Rocker said:

Good Lord!  I read some of the replies and my brain is frazzled. This subject is overthinking on a grand scale. It is important to remember that we are playing music not studying rocket science. Music that should be fun to play. Not a subject that requires detailed in-depth study. I will look at the video later. And hope my brain can cope.......

I think you've got a valid point in there Rocker - I wouldn't go so far as to state it was over-thinking..but in some ways I agree. If you get too bogged down in the "how" / theory of why something works it can lead to adhering to strict rules of using the only the "correct" chords in a key when writing songs or using the "correct" scales when improvising solos - and you end up missing out on those happy accidents that leads to interesting music (Keith Richards says when he was jamming at home he'd make a "mistake" and come up with a song as a result...).

Cobain made some wonderful stuff using a collection of ham-fisted power chords (that intro to Lithium with that vocal line over the top !) - but by the same token Mike Stern doesn't seem to have been hamstrung by the rules of theory as regards his creativity - and in his case knowing the how and why of soloing over diminished chords is probably a useful skill to have.

Dunno.. I'm still trying to figure all this out myself.

Theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, it describes what is there, but it doesn't tell you what to do and what not to do. Often when you analyse the work of someone who doesn't know music theory you'll find that they follow some basic rules 

Cobain's vocal melodies contain a lot of thirds and sixths, filling in chord information that is missing from the guitar. This is one of the things that makes them pop. You can find these notes instinctively, but knowing the theory can help you to quickly identify and audition them

I'd argue the opposite, that knowing the rules empowers you to more readily break them :-)

To give it a musical metaphor 'A multi instrumentalist doesnt have play all the instruments in a composition. They can choose to play one,two,or more instruments but they don't have to play all. It's their choice?' 
Is that fair as it's how I look at my guitar journey?

Roland

roberty said:

Theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, it describes what is there, but it doesn't tell you what to do and what not to do. 

Thought for the day.

Lewy

guitarjack66 said:

roberty said:

CaseOfAce said:

Rocker said:

Good Lord!  I read some of the replies and my brain is frazzled. This subject is overthinking on a grand scale. It is important to remember that we are playing music not studying rocket science. Music that should be fun to play. Not a subject that requires detailed in-depth study. I will look at the video later. And hope my brain can cope.......

I think you've got a valid point in there Rocker - I wouldn't go so far as to state it was over-thinking..but in some ways I agree. If you get too bogged down in the "how" / theory of why something works it can lead to adhering to strict rules of using the only the "correct" chords in a key when writing songs or using the "correct" scales when improvising solos - and you end up missing out on those happy accidents that leads to interesting music (Keith Richards says when he was jamming at home he'd make a "mistake" and come up with a song as a result...).

Cobain made some wonderful stuff using a collection of ham-fisted power chords (that intro to Lithium with that vocal line over the top !) - but by the same token Mike Stern doesn't seem to have been hamstrung by the rules of theory as regards his creativity - and in his case knowing the how and why of soloing over diminished chords is probably a useful skill to have.

Dunno.. I'm still trying to figure all this out myself.

Theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, it describes what is there, but it doesn't tell you what to do and what not to do. Often when you analyse the work of someone who doesn't know music theory you'll find that they follow some basic rules 

Cobain's vocal melodies contain a lot of thirds and sixths, filling in chord information that is missing from the guitar. This is one of the things that makes them pop. You can find these notes instinctively, but knowing the theory can help you to quickly identify and audition them

I'd argue the opposite, that knowing the rules empowers you to more readily break them :-)

To give it a musical metaphor 'A multi instrumentalist doesnt have play all the instruments in a composition. They can choose to play one,two,or more instruments but they don't have to play all. It's their choice?' 
Is that fair as it's how I look at my guitar journey?

Or to draw a parallel with another art form (for that is what music is).... you can strive to be the next Picasso, or you can be happy drawing a cock and balls on a steamed up window, and all points in between. 

mrkb

Lewy said:

guitarjack66 said:

roberty said:

CaseOfAce said:

Rocker said:

Good Lord!  I read some of the replies and my brain is frazzled. This subject is overthinking on a grand scale. It is important to remember that we are playing music not studying rocket science. Music that should be fun to play. Not a subject that requires detailed in-depth study. I will look at the video later. And hope my brain can cope.......

I think you've got a valid point in there Rocker - I wouldn't go so far as to state it was over-thinking..but in some ways I agree. If you get too bogged down in the "how" / theory of why something works it can lead to adhering to strict rules of using the only the "correct" chords in a key when writing songs or using the "correct" scales when improvising solos - and you end up missing out on those happy accidents that leads to interesting music (Keith Richards says when he was jamming at home he'd make a "mistake" and come up with a song as a result...).

Cobain made some wonderful stuff using a collection of ham-fisted power chords (that intro to Lithium with that vocal line over the top !) - but by the same token Mike Stern doesn't seem to have been hamstrung by the rules of theory as regards his creativity - and in his case knowing the how and why of soloing over diminished chords is probably a useful skill to have.

Dunno.. I'm still trying to figure all this out myself.

Theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, it describes what is there, but it doesn't tell you what to do and what not to do. Often when you analyse the work of someone who doesn't know music theory you'll find that they follow some basic rules 

Cobain's vocal melodies contain a lot of thirds and sixths, filling in chord information that is missing from the guitar. This is one of the things that makes them pop. You can find these notes instinctively, but knowing the theory can help you to quickly identify and audition them

I'd argue the opposite, that knowing the rules empowers you to more readily break them :-)

To give it a musical metaphor 'A multi instrumentalist doesnt have play all the instruments in a composition. They can choose to play one,two,or more instruments but they don't have to play all. It's their choice?' 
Is that fair as it's how I look at my guitar journey?

Or to draw a parallel with another art form (for that is what music is).... you can strive to be the next Picasso, or you can be happy drawing a cock and balls on a steamed up window, and all points in between. 

Picasso was shit man, his cock and balls pictures didn’t even look realistic!!

Lewy

mrkb said:

Lewy said:

guitarjack66 said:

roberty said:

CaseOfAce said:

Rocker said:

Good Lord!  I read some of the replies and my brain is frazzled. This subject is overthinking on a grand scale. It is important to remember that we are playing music not studying rocket science. Music that should be fun to play. Not a subject that requires detailed in-depth study. I will look at the video later. And hope my brain can cope.......

I think you've got a valid point in there Rocker - I wouldn't go so far as to state it was over-thinking..but in some ways I agree. If you get too bogged down in the "how" / theory of why something works it can lead to adhering to strict rules of using the only the "correct" chords in a key when writing songs or using the "correct" scales when improvising solos - and you end up missing out on those happy accidents that leads to interesting music (Keith Richards says when he was jamming at home he'd make a "mistake" and come up with a song as a result...).

Cobain made some wonderful stuff using a collection of ham-fisted power chords (that intro to Lithium with that vocal line over the top !) - but by the same token Mike Stern doesn't seem to have been hamstrung by the rules of theory as regards his creativity - and in his case knowing the how and why of soloing over diminished chords is probably a useful skill to have.

Dunno.. I'm still trying to figure all this out myself.

Theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, it describes what is there, but it doesn't tell you what to do and what not to do. Often when you analyse the work of someone who doesn't know music theory you'll find that they follow some basic rules 

Cobain's vocal melodies contain a lot of thirds and sixths, filling in chord information that is missing from the guitar. This is one of the things that makes them pop. You can find these notes instinctively, but knowing the theory can help you to quickly identify and audition them

I'd argue the opposite, that knowing the rules empowers you to more readily break them :-)

To give it a musical metaphor 'A multi instrumentalist doesnt have play all the instruments in a composition. They can choose to play one,two,or more instruments but they don't have to play all. It's their choice?' 
Is that fair as it's how I look at my guitar journey?

Or to draw a parallel with another art form (for that is what music is).... you can strive to be the next Picasso, or you can be happy drawing a cock and balls on a steamed up window, and all points in between. 

Picasso was shit man, his cock and balls pictures didn’t even look realistic!!

They look exactly like mine.....

guitarjack66

mrkb said:

Lewy said:

guitarjack66 said:

roberty said:

CaseOfAce said:

Rocker said:

Good Lord!  I read some of the replies and my brain is frazzled. This subject is overthinking on a grand scale. It is important to remember that we are playing music not studying rocket science. Music that should be fun to play. Not a subject that requires detailed in-depth study. I will look at the video later. And hope my brain can cope.......

I think you've got a valid point in there Rocker - I wouldn't go so far as to state it was over-thinking..but in some ways I agree. If you get too bogged down in the "how" / theory of why something works it can lead to adhering to strict rules of using the only the "correct" chords in a key when writing songs or using the "correct" scales when improvising solos - and you end up missing out on those happy accidents that leads to interesting music (Keith Richards says when he was jamming at home he'd make a "mistake" and come up with a song as a result...).

Cobain made some wonderful stuff using a collection of ham-fisted power chords (that intro to Lithium with that vocal line over the top !) - but by the same token Mike Stern doesn't seem to have been hamstrung by the rules of theory as regards his creativity - and in his case knowing the how and why of soloing over diminished chords is probably a useful skill to have.

Dunno.. I'm still trying to figure all this out myself.

Theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, it describes what is there, but it doesn't tell you what to do and what not to do. Often when you analyse the work of someone who doesn't know music theory you'll find that they follow some basic rules 

Cobain's vocal melodies contain a lot of thirds and sixths, filling in chord information that is missing from the guitar. This is one of the things that makes them pop. You can find these notes instinctively, but knowing the theory can help you to quickly identify and audition them

I'd argue the opposite, that knowing the rules empowers you to more readily break them :-)

To give it a musical metaphor 'A multi instrumentalist doesnt have play all the instruments in a composition. They can choose to play one,two,or more instruments but they don't have to play all. It's their choice?' 
Is that fair as it's how I look at my guitar journey?

Or to draw a parallel with another art form (for that is what music is).... you can strive to be the next Picasso, or you can be happy drawing a cock and balls on a steamed up window, and all points in between. 

Picasso was shit man, his cock and balls pictures didn’t even look realistic!!

You obviously havent hit middle age! You are lucky if you can see them at all.

kelpbeds

Benm39 said:

Really useful and clear video @kelpbeds ;  thanks for posting

Appreciated, thank you!

kelpbeds

stratman3142 said:

@kelpbeds that's how I would think if I wanted to visualise the Aeolian mode (minor) built on the minor pentatonic and the Ionian mode built on the major pentatonic.

I like your term 'see the layers in CAGED'.

So, as you show in your diagrams, the Aeolian mode is the minor pentatonic with the added (green) notes being the 2 and b6.

And the Ionian mode is the major pentatonic with the added (green) notes being the 4 and 7.

And, as I'm sure you already know:

The Mixolydian mode is the major pentatonic with the added notes being the 4 and the b7.

The Lydian mode is the major pentatonic with the added notes being the #4 and 7.

The Dorian mode is the minor pentatonic with the added notes being the 2 and 6.

The Phrygian mode is the minor pentatonic with the added notes being the b2 and b6.

The framework I often use in rock/blues soloing is the minor pentatonic combined with the major pentatonic, with an added b5. I can visualise that built from a CAGED pentatonic framework. But there might (for example) be 4nps (or more) so I'm not sure that describing things in terms of 3nps would fit.

C,A,G,E,D are the labels for orientating things on the fretboard. I focus on the red empty circles (root note octave patterns) in your diagrams to name the shapes as C, A, G, E or D, rather than the full 1,3,5 (major) or 1, b3,5 (minor) chords.

Yes I think the layers thing is super useful and one of the main strengths of the CAGED system.

Yes Aeolian is minor pentatonic with added 2 and b6 like you said and same re your explanation of Ionian.

And yes totally agree re the modes, I related those to the pentatonic shapes just like you explained.

And yes I love mixing major and minor pentatonics and use a number of devices to do this, some CAGED but also a lot of straight intervallic ideas and a system I developed called The Cross System. I think it's good to have different systems to use so that you can come up with a variety of ideas.

All good stuff, cheers!

Rocker

@kelpbeds I got to 12.30 on your video about CAGED when our internet broke down. Everything you said made a great deal of sense so I am looking forward to continuing the video to the end (soon I hope).

kelpbeds

Rocker said:

@kelpbeds I got to 12.30 on your video about CAGED when our internet broke down. Everything you said made a great deal of sense so I am looking forward to continuing the video to the end (soon I hope).

Unfortunately the CAGED system doesn't cover getting internet connections up and running again! ;-) (Glad you are enjoying the vid so far!)
 Super annoying though, I feel your pain, had a right palaver with our internet a while back!

Cranky

viz said:

Ok thanks, yep, I think it doesn’t add anything for me, I prefer just thinking in inversions - root, 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Cheers

I was enjoying reading this knowing how far ahead of CAGED you are.  

CAGED is good if you think about what it was like when you only knew the open chords (especially if you knew nothing at all about music, scales, or any other instruments).  CAGED is a nice intro to moveable shapes and how the major triads work.  It also maps onto the pentatonic positions nicely.

But really, it’s only a jumping-off point, especially into the world of chord voicing and voice leading.  And you jumped off and into the rest of it a long time ago, I would guess, based on your mastery of music in general.

Fwiw, CAGED illuminated a ton of voicing and arpeggio possibilities for me.  So idk what this silly poster is talking about.

carlos

A recent realisation for me regarding CAGED, is that it's made me understand the geometry of my first 7 string very quickly.

jtmax

Learned way back in the late seventies without the considerable distractions of competing systems all demonstrating the "easy way" etc etc.There is no easy way;no real short cuts.As John Mclaughlin said "you have to be prepared to apply yourself".That  and sagacious listening,ear training and any volumes by Ted Greene.

Wish i had taken John Mclaughlins advice though.

viz

Cranky said:

viz said:

Ok thanks, yep, I think it doesn’t add anything for me, I prefer just thinking in inversions - root, 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Cheers

I was enjoying reading this knowing how far ahead of CAGED you are.  

CAGED is good if you think about what it was like when you only knew the open chords (especially if you knew nothing at all about music, scales, or any other instruments).  CAGED is a nice intro to moveable shapes and how the major triads work.  It also maps onto the pentatonic positions nicely.

But really, it’s only a jumping-off point, especially into the world of chord voicing and voice leading.  And you jumped off and into the rest of it a long time ago, I would guess, based on your mastery of music in general.

Fwiw, CAGED illuminated a ton of voicing and arpeggio possibilities for me.  So idk what this silly poster is talking about.

I think you’re being very nice but rather overestimating my abilities! But for the rest I heartily agree, it seems to be a good framework to base stuff off, particularly technique-based stuff (rather than, for example, abstract, conceptual-music-based stuff)

If you come to guitar as your first instrument I think it’s probably really useful, a bit like learning your scales as a pianist. It’s really one of the fundaments of how to play the guitar “properly”. 

For me, coming from other instruments, I short-cut all that stuff. I know I don’t play the guitar properly; my playing is just constant chaotic stabs at trying to make my fingers replicate what’s in my mind’s ear, badly. 

I’ve just realised. I probably need to learn to play CAGED.