So let's have this CAGED conversation...

Ed DeGenaro

Ed DeGenaro

Shredder
Messages
1,497
@Eagle come in here and tell me what makes CAGED great for YOU.

Afaic it literally is no different than any other way of organizing the frebiard irregardless if it's 5 or 7 zones.

And if I saw it correct Dani's approach isn't really CAGED but rather 5 positions based on octave location. Aka MI positions.
And those are all the same whether you call it Martino's converting to minor, CAGED, MI positions, Benson's C/Am scale arpeggios or Vincent's C/Am Hexatonic.

The basic break down is visualize which string holds the root and done.
As a friend like to call it CAGED is the way the guitar's strings are tuned.
 
The way I visualize the fretboard is a movable straight line of the 7 modes. CAGED makes sense but it’s limiting. 5 zones of pentatonic is still boring old pentatonic.

I guess I can say that I get the CAGED system but I don’t practice it as knowing the modes makes more sense.
 
HomespunEffects said:
The way I visualize the fretboard is a straight line of the 7 modes. CAGED makes sense but it’s limiting. 5 zones of pentatonic is still boring old pentatonic.

I guess I can say that I get the CAGED system but I don’t practice it as knowing the modes makes more sense.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a very scale-centric approach. CAGED however has a rather strong chordal heritage. Sure, you can deviate from that and also use it as a means to organize scalar stuff, but it's still based on moveable open chord forms (at least that seems to be the most common usage).
 
Sascha Franck said:
Well, that's a very scale-centric approach. CAGED however has a rather strong chordal heritage. Sure, you can deviate from that and also use it as a means to organize scalar stuff, but it's still based on moveable open chord forms (at least that seems to be the most common usage).
Click to expand...
I guess that’s what i mean. It seems to be limiting because it’s based on simple open cords and relating pentatonic to those chords, while knowing the modes opens up the chords to all the variations.
 
Ed DeGenaro said:
@Eagle come in here and tell me what makes CAGED great for YOU.

Afaic it literally is no different than any other way of organizing the frebiard irregardless if it's 5 or 7 zones.

And if I saw it correct Dani's approach isn't really CAGED but rather 5 positions based on octave location. Aka MI positions.
And those are all the same whether you call it Martino's converting to minor, CAGED, MI positions, Benson's C/Am scale arpeggios or Vincent's C/Am Hexatonic.

The basic break down is visualize which string holds the root and done.
As a friend like to call it CAGED is the way the guitar's strings are tuned.
Click to expand...
He like me only uses caged to quickly locate familiar ideas in to none familiar locations on the neck . I actually mostly play TNPS but caged is good to blend pentatonic and arpeggios quickly without thinking . I certainly don’t consider caged as a musical device. It just a tool that fills in for the fact that the guitar has multiple places to play the same thing.
I also have most chords and scales I use regularly in root 4/5/6 shapes and flip them around from the root notes position. A lot of things span across two caged positions anyway but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. Anything complicated or new to me I would just go with the notes or the chord spelling and alter the major scale accordingly. It is about trying not to think too hard playing beyond knowing the direction you are going with confidence that the result is your intention.
If you know the notes in a triad and the fingerboard
You can see them anywhere anyway.
I’m self taught and don’t always do things conventionally but this works for what I play.
 
Eagle said:
He like me only uses caged to quickly locate familiar ideas in to none familiar locations on the neck . I actually mostly play TNPS but caged is good to blend pentatonic and arpeggios quickly without thinking . I certainly don’t consider caged as a musical device. It just a tool that fills in for the fact that the guitar has multiple places to play the same thing.
I also have most chords and scales I use regularly in root 4/5/6 shapes and flip them around from the root notes position. A lot of things span across two caged positions anyway but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. Anything complicated or new to me I would just go with the notes or the chord spelling and alter the major scale accordingly. It is about trying not to think too hard playing beyond knowing the direction you are going with confidence that the result is your intention.
If you know the notes in a triad and the fingerboard
You can see them anywhere anyway.
I’m self taught and don’t always do things conventionally but this works for what I play.
Click to expand...
Do you find 3NPS to undermine voice leading? Keeping chords in a box seems to hold it all together. Of course that’s limiting as well but with a purpose.
 
Fwiw, personally, I'm not fundamentally opposed to CAGED. It's just another way of reaching the same (or very similar) goals.

What I don't like with most presentations of it is that the focus is too much on guitar-derived shapes rather than starting with the musical backbones. Sure, makes it easy to understand at first but it's getting harder when you all of a sudden need to do things such as, say, reducing chords to 3-4 strings. This is when things start to fall apart a little, unless you really do some abstraction. Which is absolutely possible but starting with a set of full 6 string chords possibly isn't the best idea in that case.

Add to this that if we really use the chords used for the letters, their "inner works" are fundamentally different. A full open E chord has three roots and one third. a standard open C chord has 3 thirds (ok, maybe just 2, depending on what you're doing on the E6 string) and 2 roots. An open D chord has two roots and one third. Let alone the open D as typically used in whatever CAGED demonstrations is only covering 4 strings.
Now, while I know that all of these can (and should) be modified (and proper CAGED teachers explain these modifications a great deal), in my (very personal, just so that is clear...) book it's a better idea to at least finally organize things the other way around. Start with the musical barebones (open position chords really aren't that, they're rather "beginner guitarists barebones") and built up from there.

And fwiw, I'm still not saying CAGED is bad. For example, the triad thing I'm currently trying to elaborate a bit on in the other thread isn't exactly too suitable for beginners. CAGED is possibly better suited to get you quick results, especially in case you're already familiar with a) open chords and b) the "barre concept", as in being able to move things around once you replace the nut (or leave out things typically played on open strings).

Yet, once you're into all of this a bit more, I think it's a great idea to explore things a little more from a generally valid musical POV. And that's where CAGED starts to fall apart unless you really go through some modifying hoops.

---

Anyhow, for me, the most important thing is that using different approaches leads to a broader understanding of both the instrument and music.
For me personally (<-!), the tipping point that really elevated my chord playing to another level has been 7th chords in their drop 2 incarnations. It has only been several years later that I discovered the "beauty" of a triad-based thinking (so to say...), simply because for my (<-!) brain and fingers it's a most excellent way to combine general music "rules", very guitar friendly shapes and a whole lot of freedom to modify things.

However, when I analyse the outcome of my playing, I very likely would be playing literally the same stuff using any other approach. Many roads (maybe not all, though) lead to Rome.
But still: Having various POVs and at least exploring them briefly, is a very good idea. There's always things that may float your boat more than others.
Which is also why it'd be utter nonsense to have a "CAGED vs. triads", "triads vs. 7th chords" or whatever debate. Just take look at what each of the approaches has to offer and pick your poison(s).
 
Nicolas Caged

giphy.gif
 
HomespunEffects said:
I guess that’s what i mean. It seems to be limiting because it’s based on simple open cords and relating pentatonic to those chords, while knowing the modes opens up the chords to all the variations.
Click to expand...

Well, not sure about all this. Again: It might be very, very different for each person and very different for different styles of playing.

Just a little bit from my personal "scale history": At first I was obviously shown the pentatonic scale. But as I wanted more, I found out about what often is refered to as the 5 "main positions" (let's not argue about this for now), only to expand them to 7 positions later on - which, at least on paper, is making sense. I mean, in a typical 7-note scale/key, there's 7 notes you can start your pattern on, and if you're always using the same finger to start with, you automatically end up with 7 positions. Just that you don't - which I realized after having a look into "A Modern Method For Guitar" by William Leavitt (back then kinda like the guru of modern guitar teaching), who basically want's you to play all keys in one position or one key in all positions. Which makes up for 12 positions (fwiw, it's a great academic practice and defenitely food for your brain as well, but IMO not exactly useful in actual daily use)
And then later on there's been 3NPS scales. Which are not "in position" but always moving between 2 positions. So, yet another thing (or 0.5 thing) to consider.
Whatever, so much about my history.

It's just that when I later on analysed the way in which I was playing most often, it would in fact boil down to 5 main positions, just that I'd never "fully" use any position. Like really never. But the center of my playing could still always be rooted back to one of those 5 positions. And if someone really wanted, these 5 positions could then be rooted back to the idea behind the CAGED system. So there, almost full circle.

However, when it comes to scales regardless of how I started and how I got there, what taught me the most was "comfort zone" playing, which I think many players will ultimately end up with, regardless of whatever initial approaches they went for.
One kinda method to get there for me has been to explore string pairs in octaves. An example, here's a G major scale pattern on the A5 and E6 strings, lowest note being an F#:
A5 ---------2-3-5
E6 --2-3-5-------

Apart from the missing note E, it's almost a full G major scale. Now, this very note pattern repeats on the D and G strings, just 2 frets above. And you could now use the A string to perform a position shift, covering the missing E (still on the A string) and then proceed with the same pattern on the D and G strings. Then, the pattern repeats on the B and E1 strings, this time 3 frets above. But you could still use the same way to shift positions and then continue.
With this very scale pattern, you're already covering a whole some more fretboard estate than with in-position or 3NPS patterns. And it's basically 3 times the same fingering pattern. Win-win.
No, this doesn't even remotely qualify as an ultimate approach, some scalar patterns really aren't nicely falling into place, so the position shifts would have to be modified and what not - but it's a great way of organising things IMO - well, it's a great "additional" way of organizing things.

Another thing I was doing a lot for a while was playing the same note sequence (just anything between, say, 3 and 5 notes) in as many variations as I could think of. Once you're doing that it will become sort of apparent which way to play these notes is the most comfortable for you, the best sounding one, the one allowing for the coolest bends and what not.

And again: There's many ways to skin this cat. And it makes a whole lot of sense to at least briefly look at some of them.

Fwiw, when it comes to all things scale-noodling, I should possibly add that playing quick runs has worn of for me a long time ago already. So instead of focusing on bursts of speed, I prefer it much more to raise my "baseline speed" - as in being able to play pretty much the things I want to play at decent pace. Defenitely kept me away from becoming a fast gun, but I can live with that.
 
Sascha Franck said:
Fwiw, personally, I'm not fundamentally opposed to CAGED. It's just another way of reaching the same (or very similar) goals.

What I don't like with most presentations of it is that the focus is too much on guitar-derived shapes rather than starting with the musical backbones. Sure, makes it easy to understand at first but it's getting harder when you all of a sudden need to do things such as, say, reducing chords to 3-4 strings. This is when things start to fall apart a little, unless you really do some abstraction. Which is absolutely possible but starting with a set of full 6 string chords possibly isn't the best idea in that case.

Add to this that if we really use the chords used for the letters, their "inner works" are fundamentally different. A full open E chord has three roots and one third. a standard open C chord has 3 thirds (ok, maybe just 2, depending on what you're doing on the E6 string) and 2 roots. An open D chord has two roots and one third. Let alone the open D as typically used in whatever CAGED demonstrations is only covering 4 strings.
Now, while I know that all of these can (and should) be modified (and proper CAGED teachers explain these modifications a great deal), in my (very personal, just so that is clear...) book it's a better idea to at least finally organize things the other way around. Start with the musical barebones (open position chords really aren't that, they're rather "beginner guitarists barebones") and built up from there.

And fwiw, I'm still not saying CAGED is bad. For example, the triad thing I'm currently trying to elaborate a bit on in the other thread isn't exactly too suitable for beginners. CAGED is possibly better suited to get you quick results, especially in case you're already familiar with a) open chords and b) the "barre concept", as in being able to move things around once you replace the nut (or leave out things typically played on open strings).

Yet, once you're into all of this a bit more, I think it's a great idea to explore things a little more from a generally valid musical POV. And that's where CAGED starts to fall apart unless you really go through some modifying hoops.

---

Anyhow, for me, the most important thing is that using different approaches leads to a broader understanding of both the instrument and music.
For me personally (<-!), the tipping point that really elevated my chord playing to another level has been 7th chords in their drop 2 incarnations. It has only been several years later that I discovered the "beauty" of a triad-based thinking (so to say...), simply because for my (<-!) brain and fingers it's a most excellent way to combine general music "rules", very guitar friendly shapes and a whole lot of freedom to modify things.

However, when I analyse the outcome of my playing, I very likely would be playing literally the same stuff using any other approach. Many roads (maybe not all, though) lead to Rome.
But still: Having various POVs and at least exploring them briefly, is a very good idea. There's always things that may float your boat more than others.
Which is also why it'd be utter nonsense to have a "CAGED vs. triads", "triads vs. 7th chords" or whatever debate. Just take look at what each of the approaches has to offer and pick your poison(s).
Click to expand...
From my days when I still taught 5 positions and how I extrapolated 4 note voicings and parent scale for CAGED positions.

I hadn't looked at this in at least 15 years lol

1749214006785.png


If I was to start from zero I'd first get my ears together and just learn to hear stuff.

And I mosdef would skip 3 nps "modes"
Which in reality it isn't but just a repeating finger pattern of fingerings 1-2-4 x2 1-3-4x2 and spread 1-2-4 x3

Vocabulary and ears even without theory is where it's at.
As in if one doesn't have lines it ain't gonna happen.

I just finished this and even the Dbmaj7 to C+ vamp in the solo is likely easier to play over by ear than know to use F Mel. Min

 
I think there's basically two things that - at some point in time - need to go hand in hand with each other:

- Do-ability on the guitar.
- General musical techniques.

CAGED (and partially pentatonic and 3NPS scale patterns) have a strong "easy on guitars" heritage whereas, say, properly voiced (as in delivering proper voice leading and what not) 7th chords are sort of the opposite. In fact so much we can't play most close voiced 7th chords on guitar but need to reach out for their drop 2 variations (second voice from the top dropped down an octave).

So, in the end, if we want to achieve whatever levels of "completeness" as musicians (and not just as guitar players), we need to go for a mixed approach.
And there's pretty much no general right or wrong approach, just different focuses and POVs.
 
Ed DeGenaro said:
If I was to start from zero I'd first get my ears together and just learn to hear stuff.
Click to expand...

Defenitely seconded.

And seriously, I wish someone had taught me some country secrets earlier (or that I had found out about them earlierm because in the end I had to do it on my own). And no, I don't even exactly want to play country, but there's so many great things to be found in techniques and approaches, it's amazing me to this day. After all, there's some reasons for most country players being able to at least sort of decently play over jazzy chord progressions whereas the same defenitely isn't true vice versa (I could even explain why that is likely so), and at the same time there's several fundamental guitar oriented techniques covered as well.
 
Sascha Franck said:
Defenitely seconded.

And seriously, I wish someone had taught me some country secrets earlier (or that I had found out about them earlierm because in the end I had to do it on my own). And no, I don't even exactly want to play country, but there's so many great things to be found in techniques and approaches, it's amazing me to this day. After all, there's some reasons for most country players being able to at least sort of decently play over jazzy chord progressions whereas the same defenitely isn't true vice versa (I could even explain why that is likely so), and at the same time there's several fundamental guitar oriented techniques covered as well.
Click to expand...
I think you should explain why it isn't the same vice versa fir the guys that don't know.
 
Ed DeGenaro said:
I think you should explain why it isn't the same vice versa fir the guys that don't know.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll try to keep it reasonably short.

Most country music is based on 3-part "non-seventh-chord" harmony, at least regarding most "target" chords, first and foremost the tonic chord (I know there's plenty of exceptions, but let's not get there). If you now improvise over, say, a typical I-IV-V-I (or any permutation) progression in, say, C, you'll end up with a C major chord. And just a C triad chord that is (doubled notes are irrelevant here).
Ending up with your lines on anything but the notes of the C chord (hence C, E or G) will likely not exactly sound "home" or "there" or whatever. Again, there's certainly exceptions, but in general, it's the most plausible thing to end on one of these notes.
Everybody can try it on their own, I'm sure you'll notice that, while not sounding "out", ending up on a D, an A or a B will not sound as "home". Note: I'm completely leaving out the F because that'd produce a strong dissonance along with the E - and we're talking country, hence very consonant here.
So, out of 7 notes of the C major scale, there's just 3 that we can properly land on in country music.
Let's please keep it that simplified for the time being (and fwiw, when you analyse some country soloing, you will find out that this is precisely what's happening most of the time).
As a result, all lines, patterns, licks and what not will have to be played very much with a focus of landing on these notes. Which, regardless of whether you look at it from a technical or musical POV, is pretty tough.

Now, let's look at jazzy-er settings. We're basically talking 4-part or 7th-chord harmony here. Our target chord C (no matter what we're playing before) will now not be a plain C major triad anymore but usually one or the other form of a Cmaj7.
Now, once we're adding a 7th to a chord, it's very obvious that landing on the maj7 as a target note is just fine. But for whatever reasons, it doesn't even stop there. Landing on a 9th or 13th is an absolutely common sound within the jazzy realm as well, even if they're not actually used in the accompanying chords. And it's still not exactly stopping there, once we accept a sort of "open-ish" character, we can even play an F# as a target note over a Cmaj7 chord - yes, that's a note not even in the C major scale anymore, briefly introducing a lydian character on the tonic chord. Not happening tooo often (depending on the style and interpretation of course), but still.
So, to properly land on the tonic major 7th chord in a jazzier context, we do now have 6 out of 7 scale notes at our disposal (and sometimes even 7). As a result, a lot more lines, patterns, licks and what not will sort of automatically end up on a proper target note.

And that's basically it. Yes, it's very simplified and there's some other reasons for country to also be an excellent preparation to get into jazz (a kinda important one being that a lot of country involves V-I chord movements, something you need to deal with properly - and something many jazzy chord maneuvers are centered around as well).

Fwiw, it's pretty easy to try things out. Record a one chord vamp just using a C major chord. No other notes but C-E-G. Noodle over it and check out how all the notes from the C major scale will suit the chord (or not suit it). Then do the very same things over a Cmaj7 chord. Given my experience with students, pretty much everybody observes the same "phenomina" as described above.
 
Sascha Franck said:
Well, not sure about all this. Again: It might be very, very different for each person and very different for different styles of playing.

Just a little bit from my personal "scale history": At first I was obviously shown the pentatonic scale. But as I wanted more, I found out about what often is refered to as the 5 "main positions" (let's not argue about this for now), only to expand them to 7 positions later on - which, at least on paper, is making sense. I mean, in a typical 7-note scale/key, there's 7 notes you can start your pattern on, and if you're always using the same finger to start with, you automatically end up with 7 positions. Just that you don't - which I realized after having a look into "A Modern Method For Guitar" by William Leavitt (back then kinda like the guru of modern guitar teaching), who basically want's you to play all keys in one position or one key in all positions. Which makes up for 12 positions (fwiw, it's a great academic practice and defenitely food for your brain as well, but IMO not exactly useful in actual daily use)
And then later on there's been 3NPS scales. Which are not "in position" but always moving between 2 positions. So, yet another thing (or 0.5 thing) to consider.
Whatever, so much about my history.

It's just that when I later on analysed the way in which I was playing most often, it would in fact boil down to 5 main positions, just that I'd never "fully" use any position. Like really never. But the center of my playing could still always be rooted back to one of those 5 positions. And if someone really wanted, these 5 positions could then be rooted back to the idea behind the CAGED system. So there, almost full circle.

However, when it comes to scales regardless of how I started and how I got there, what taught me the most was "comfort zone" playing, which I think many players will ultimately end up with, regardless of whatever initial approaches they went for.
One kinda method to get there for me has been to explore string pairs in octaves. An example, here's a G major scale pattern on the A5 and E6 strings, lowest note being an F#:
A5 ---------2-3-5
E6 --2-3-5-------

Apart from the missing note E, it's almost a full G major scale. Now, this very note pattern repeats on the D and G strings, just 2 frets above. And you could now use the A string to perform a position shift, covering the missing E (still on the A string) and then proceed with the same pattern on the D and G strings. Then, the pattern repeats on the B and E1 strings, this time 3 frets above. But you could still use the same way to shift positions and then continue.
With this very scale pattern, you're already covering a whole some more fretboard estate than with in-position or 3NPS patterns. And it's basically 3 times the same fingering pattern. Win-win.
No, this doesn't even remotely qualify as an ultimate approach, some scalar patterns really aren't nicely falling into place, so the position shifts would have to be modified and what not - but it's a great way of organising things IMO - well, it's a great "additional" way of organizing things.

Another thing I was doing a lot for a while was playing the same note sequence (just anything between, say, 3 and 5 notes) in as many variations as I could think of. Once you're doing that it will become sort of apparent which way to play these notes is the most comfortable for you, the best sounding one, the one allowing for the coolest bends and what not.

And again: There's many ways to skin this cat. And it makes a whole lot of sense to at least briefly look at some of them.

Fwiw, when it comes to all things scale-noodling, I should possibly add that playing quick runs has worn of for me a long time ago already. So instead of focusing on bursts of speed, I prefer it much more to raise my "baseline speed" - as in being able to play pretty much the things I want to play at decent pace. Defenitely kept me away from becoming a fast gun, but I can live with that.
Click to expand...
I think we all went through a similar "scale journey".

As fir three Leavitt thing I'm gonna get pedantic for a minute. Which he got from Joe Pass afaik.
You can't have 12 of the major scales in one position, only 5
 
Ed DeGenaro said:
You can't have 12 of the major scales in one position, only 5
Click to expand...

Nah, it's possible, really. It does depend on your definition of "position" though. Leavitt seems to define it kinda like the classical way, which would be:
- Position is defined by the fret below the one the middle finger is in. So, middle finger in 3rd fret means you're in 2nd position. The index finger isn't good to describe the position as it's allowed to stretch out.
- Index finger and pinky are allowed to strech out of position, middle and ring fingers are "anchored" at the same frets.
- For plain major scales, only pinky OR index finger stretch out per position.
- No finger plays two adjacent notes.

That way, you can really play all (ionian) major scales in one position. Or one scale in all positions.
Quite some of them don't make any sense, though. For instance: C major scale in 5th position is obvious, in 7th position as well, but you could as well play it in 6th position, hence your middle finger playing the C on the E strings. No sane person would ever play it like that (even if it looks like 3NPS on the D and G strings) but there's some etudes in the Leavitt books asking for these weird finger patterns.
 
Sascha Franck said:
Ok, I'll try to keep it reasonably short.

Most country music is based on 3-part "non-seventh-chord" harmony, at least regarding most "target" chords, first and foremost the tonic chord (I know there's plenty of exceptions, but let's not get there). If you now improvise over, say, a typical I-IV-V-I (or any permutation) progression in, say, C, you'll end up with a C major chord. And just a C triad chord that is (doubled notes are irrelevant here).
Ending up with your lines on anything but the notes of the C chord (hence C, E or G) will likely not exactly sound "home" or "there" or whatever. Again, there's certainly exceptions, but in general, it's the most plausible thing to end on one of these notes.
Everybody can try it on their own, I'm sure you'll notice that, while not sounding "out", ending up on a D, an A or a B will not sound as "home". Note: I'm completely leaving out the F because that'd produce a strong dissonance along with the E - and we're talking country, hence very consonant here.
So, out of 7 notes of the C major scale, there's just 3 that we can properly land on in country music.
Let's please keep it that simplified for the time being (and fwiw, when you analyse some country soloing, you will find out that this is precisely what's happening most of the time).
As a result, all lines, patterns, licks and what not will have to be played very much with a focus of landing on these notes. Which, regardless of whether you look at it from a technical or musical POV, is pretty tough.

Now, let's look at jazzy-er settings. We're basically talking 4-part or 7th-chord harmony here. Our target chord C (no matter what we're playing before) will now not be a plain C major triad anymore but usually one or the other form of a Cmaj7.
Now, once we're adding a 7th to a chord, it's very obvious that landing on the maj7 as a target note is just fine. But for whatever reasons, it doesn't even stop there. Landing on a 9th or 13th is an absolutely common sound within the jazzy realm as well, even if they're not actually used in the accompanying chords. And it's still not exactly stopping there, once we accept a sort of "open-ish" character, we can even play an F# as a target note over a Cmaj7 chord - yes, that's a note not even in the C major scale anymore, briefly introducing a lydian character on the tonic chord. Not happening tooo often (depending on the style and interpretation of course), but still.
So, to properly land on the tonic major 7th chord in a jazzier context, we do now have 6 out of 7 scale notes at our disposal (and sometimes even 7). As a result, a lot more lines, patterns, licks and what not will sort of automatically end up on a proper target note.

And that's basically it. Yes, it's very simplified and there's some other reasons for country to also be an excellent preparation to get into jazz (a kinda important one being that a lot of country involves V-I chord movements, something you need to deal with properly - and something many jazzy chord maneuvers are centered around as well).

Fwiw, it's pretty easy to try things out. Record a one chord vamp just using a C major chord. No other notes but C-E-G. Noodle over it and check out how all the notes from the C major scale will suit the chord (or not suit it). Then do the very same things over a Cmaj7 chord. Given my experience with students, pretty much everybody observes the same "phenomina" as described above.
Click to expand...
Love the explanation.

As for Jazz and landing on the 6,7,9,#11
They're the most consonant extensions.
The 6 is actually more inside than the 7. Thus often the maj7 going to the 6.

As for country guys Albert Lee lives landing on the 6.

Hence lydian, Dorian etc not having avoid notes.

I'm not sure that Jazz players have an issue ending on one of the triad chord tones because all of them are literally one wholetone below the consonant extensions.
IOW, leaving out passing notes and alterations you're playing C lydian over C and end on d, f#, a, or b a whole step slide down will have you one the chord tone.

That pesky 4th F that is there to lead to C, folks that use sight not sound to get around claim "it's in the scale" is left out of the non committal scales like the pentatonic and Hexatonic stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top