We NEED to talk about triads!

[Sascha Franck]

Neither system is missing anything .

Ok...

Also, take a look at this chord and then please tell me where exactly it is covered in the CAGED system:

View attachment 44774

Care to elaborate?

 

[Sascha Franck]

You asked me not to derail your thread. But you can’t help yourself

I already said that it was too late. Also, it might actually even help the thread when you elaborate how the shown chord is covered by the CAGED system (because IMO it simply isn't, which would then prove the usefulness of triads).

 

[FuzzyAce]

But seriously, triads are not only an essential tool musically, but they're a great visual tool as well.
I don't often think too much about it but if I sit and analyze how I approach solos... besides using my ears it's triad visualization that anchors those ideas a lot of times.

Thanks for taking the time @Sascha Franck to write all this stuff out. It's good for me to refresh on some things. We tend to get in our habits.

 

[Sascha Franck]

I don’t really know why you think it isn’t.

So, which of the chord types CAGED is based on covers the shown chord?

---

Anyhow, now that we're at it already, let me say some things (it might even help understanding why I came up with this thread):

The idea of the CAGED system is taking typical open position chords and moving them around the fretboard, usually replacing the nut with your index finger. And yes, I know it's not *that* trivial, but that's the gist behind it.
Pretty much like your full barre chords, just expanded.
You would then alter them just as you can alter your open position chords. Such as by adding/replacing some notes, kicking off things you don't need, etc.
Don't get me wrong, it's still not exactly a bad system.
Also: If you played the very same triad on a different set of strings, the CAGED approach would tell you they were deriving from different "base" chords. For instance, these two contain exactly the same notes:

The CAGED system would likely tell you that the one on the left is deriving from an open A chord whereas the right one is based on a C or D.
And that's where things are getting smelly IMO - or at least start to fall extremely short in comparison to a more or less "universal" approach such as building triads.

So, what CAGED is lacking of is a certain "generally valid" approach in terms of building chords. IOW: The CAGED system is absolutely guitar centered and can't be transfered to much else, unless you go through quite some hoops. Which might still be fine as well. However, it's lacking of some things - which is why I came up with the chord above, which isn't covered by any moved C, A, G, E or D open chord form - or rather: you'd really have to go through the mentioned hoops to get there. But it's nothing else but the first inversion of an A major triad. Which, once you've invested a little bit of time, is instantly available through the "triad mindset" (lord, how I hate such buzzwords...).

In addition, you can transform all the triad knowledge you might've gained to, say, a keyboard instantly. Or write some horn parts. Simply because triads, their inversions and whether you play them in close or spread forms are something that can be considered a more or less universally usable part of the musical language.

Another thing I often noticed is that when people are trying to get more out of the CAGED system, they will at some point end up in "reducing" the full enchilada. "Uh, sorry, to create a comfortable to play minor version of that C shape we need to leave out some notes/strings!".
Which isn't even all that bad, but you still start with something that you don't exactly need - or can't even play consistently any longer. A full open C chord shape has 3 major thirds in it, for all of them to become minor thirds, you'd need more than 4 fingers and still twist them.
With the triad approach, it's kinda like the opposite. You start with the barebone basics and go from there.

Now, one thing needs to be mentioned, though: There's *always* more than one approach to these kinda things. There's also not exactly a "right" or "wrong". And you may even end up with everything I will ever play in this thread also being accessible through the CAGED approach (even if I sort of doubt it, see the chord I posted...). So, in a nutshell I'm just trying to present one way of doing things - but IMO it's a way that can be explained (and understood) properly and holds a lot of water within a sort of generalized musical realm.

And having said all the latter: So far I have possibly covered 10% of the things I'd like to cover in this thread. We're still on first steps level.

 

[Sascha Franck]

That just the E shape for two notes and an octave

The one I posted? No,

 

[Sascha Franck]

This one derives from E caged with drop 2 voice

No. It's a close position voicing and drop 2 voicings aren't close position.

Seriously, as said before, I don't even deny the usefulness of the CAGED method, but it's limited and, most of all, not applicable for most other instruments, unless you do some "reverse engineering". Which is pointless when you can as well have it the other way around, including plausible explanations and what not.

And fwiw, if at all, the voicing I posted could be seen as an excerpt of the G shape, just not played on the A-D-G strings but on E-A-D instead. At least that'd be the closest to a "known fingershape" - which is what the CAGED method is all about (or at least what is the main idea).

However, I think we could put the CAGED discussion to a rest for now (or open another thread). We may even revive it later on in this thread, but as said, I haven't even started with the interesting things yet. And I'm sure you'll see some things that can't exactly be covered by the CAGED method, at least not as easily. But I'm all open for that discussion - yet, I'd prefer if we could put it to a rest for now, so this thread remains somewhat manageable for me (fwiw, I added links to all relevant "content" posts in the opening post).

 

[Sascha Franck]

t’s a drop 2

No, it's not. Regardless of what voice you lift up an octave (reversing the drop 2 process), it never becomes the second voice from the top.

The notes in that particular voicing are (bottom to top): C#-E-A. When you transpose the C# up an octave, the voicing becomes E-A-C#.
Drop 2 voicings never are close voicings, but this one is a close voicing.

 

[Sascha Franck]

And fwiw:

unless you’re suggesting that all triads should have all the notes in the same octave

Of course I'm suggesting that - before any drop techniques are applied.
Drop 2 as a common technical description shouldn't be used to describe anything you're doing within whatever CAGED-derived chords.

 

[Eagle]

And fwiw:



Of course I'm suggesting that - before any drop techniques are applied.
Drop 2 as a common technical description shouldn't be used to describe anything you're doing within whatever CAGED-derived chords.

Well the E doesn’t for a start.
You’re not seriously saying you only use close voiced correctly stacked intervals for your primary caged starting points . Because literally no one else does.

 

[duzie]

Oh boy

 

[Sascha Franck]

I see your point but it’s still easily moved because two of the three notes are the E shape caged and the nearest 3rd in the bass

Sure. But you know what we call that in German? "Von hinten durch die Brust ins Auge". Apparently it's indeed "shooting from the back through the breast in the eye" in English.

The same process as altered chords.

Uhm - can we please stop this discussion now? You don't seem to have much of an idea of music terminology and I would prefer to not have some nonsense posted in this thread (or having to correct that nonsense). Reach out for Wikipedia or whatever for the common meaning of "altered chords" in a musical context.

You’re not seriously saying you only use close voiced correctly stacked intervals for your primary caged starting points .

No, I'm not saying that at all. Because I'm not dealing with CAGED in this thread. All I'm saying is that there's a very common description of what "drop 2" refers to. A description that you don't seem to be aware of (same thing as with you not knowing what "altered" refers to in a chord context, really), because otherwise you wouldn't have used it for the chord I've shown.

So, please, let it go - for now at least. I don't want to pat myself on the back at all (in fact, I hate that kinda thing), but rest assured: I know pretty damn well what I'm talking about in this thread. And I'd like to keep it structured as good as possible.
I was hoping I could sort of explain the (vast) differences between what I'm trying to go for in this thread and CAGED, but apparently, at least for you it didn't work out. So let's please at least give it a rest.

 

[Sascha Franck]

You are one serious asshole .

Oh really?

I know exactly what altered means in chords and how to build any chords from its base major shape.

Not one of your previous postings would suggest that.

Yes I know exactly what I said is 100% correct.

Proveably not.

Your system is just an alternative and offers absolutely nothing different.

Just because you don't understand the differences doesn't mean anything. Because you don't have much of an idea about the subject at hand.

 

[duzie]

Maybe a thread on the correlation between triads and the caged system is in order.

 

[Sascha Franck]

As usual you ignore the substance of the questions and fail to describe the reasons for using this method over any other.

No. I described very clearly what this is about. Just that you either didn't read the thread properly or didn't understand it doesn't change one single bit with that.
And even if that wouldn't be necessary (because the differences between the approached are obvious) I also even came up with an example not properly covered by the CAGED model. An example that you called a "drop 2" version, obviously not knowing what exactly is described by that term (which is very well defined).
In a nutshell: You're trying to argue about things that you don't know much about. It'd be the same as me jumping into a discussion about proper fret leveling. But as I have no idea about that, I just don't.

 

[PLX]

Maybe a thread on the correlation between triads and the caged system is in order.

 

[duzie]

lol my avatar at TOP

 

[Sascha Franck]

Maybe a thread on the correlation between triads and the caged system is in order.

Tell me when it's due because that's a place I don't want to go to.

 

[PLX]

lol my avatar at TOP

Here's the one I'm using right now..

 

[jay mitchell]

I'm with Sascha so far. Intervals is intervals. Triads is triads. It's a universally valid musical, as opposed to instrument-specific, concept. That's by far the best way to build musical knowledge.

As a practical matter, all sorts of chord extensions and alterations can be created by the addition (or inclusion) of a simple triad. The diminished triad - erroneously designated earlier as F when it is actually B diminished - is especially useful in this regard. You can't make a simple dominant seventh chord without an included diminished triad.

As for CAGED, I'm old enough to predate the acronym. The first time I saw a guitar player make a "G" shape and use his first finger as a barre was ca. 1968. That was enough to make the light come on for me, and I took off immediately with the whole notion of using "cowboy chord" shapes as movable chords. I never thought about naming the shapes with their open-position names, however; I learned to name them based on the actual chord. For example, a "G" shape built from the sixth fret/sixth string is a Bb, and there is no reason to ever call it anything other than that. It's one position in which to play that chord. Nothing more, nothing less. Even within that one position, you can play three closed-voice and three open-voiced inversions as chords (i.e., all the notes simultaneously). Because there are so many chord shapes that don't fit neatly into the CAGED concept, I'd say it's a relatively primitive way to assist beginning players in learning the fretboard. I don't even bother using the acronym, but that's just me.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Because there are so many chord shapes that don't fit neatly into the CAGED concept, I'd say it's a relatively primitive way to assist beginning players in learning the fretboard. I don't even bother using the acronym, but that's just me.

I actually think the CAGED "system" isn't all that bad. And there's quite some high profile players who seem to be thinking sort of centered around that "method". It's just that there's no real "system" behind it (hence the quotes), it's merely something that is kinda coincidentally working "almost as well" as, say, a triad based approach (for obvious reasons, there's a whole lot of common ground either method will cover).

Whatever, I think it's pretty clear that a triad based approach, regardless of the shared aspects, is something pretty different.

It's a universally valid musical, as opposed to instrument-specific, concept.

Namely this.

In addition, while this might not be valid for everyone, I found "triad based thinking and organisation" to be immensely helpful to understand certain things, to learn the fretboard, to achieve "proper" voice leading and what not.
And as I will hopefully be able to show, it goes way beyond playing simple triad based harmonies - and does that sort of easily in terms of finger acrobatics (again for obvious reasons).