Fretboard Logic FAQs


FAQs
Last Revised: June 5, 2010



I'm having trouble with the barred forms in Book I... I don't understand how you got from the C form on page 46 [of SE] to the C minor form on page 47... I'm totally stuck in translating this to the scale forms. I see the positions on page 14-18, but cannot for the life of me associate the identified numbered frets with a typical scale..

I don't understand modes. My teacher said...

I learned the C major scale before I got this book and to my knowledge Major scales go W-W-H-W-W-W-H...

String gauges and action

Can you suggest a drill or two that will help me exercise and develop my memory of the various possibilities for playing a given chord?

I'm left-handed...

Practice Routines

About the books' bindings

Is reading standard notation required?

The Finger-Tite Locking Nut

What is a "Registered" Fretboard Logic Teacher?

What does "4th, 4th, 4th, 3rd, 4th" mean?

DVDs and country codes

Making transitions from nuclear forms

Introducing teachers to Fretboard Logic

FAQs, Amazon feedback and learning issues

Fretboard position markers

Xed form inconsistency

Relativity and degree alterations

Clarifying formulas for calculating frequencies

Perfect pitch

PAL and SECAM video formats

Patterns, keys and modes

Blues scales, pentatonics, keys and modes

Origins of the acoustic-electric

Alternate tunings

The effects of low frequency polyphonic vibrations on man in the sub, uh, marigolds

Print catalogs and off-line orders

Chord inversions and the guitar's tuning

International pricing

The level of difficulty of the videos

Fretboard patterns in Van Halen's music

Creativity and intuition in music

Scales, modes, forms and target notes

Measuring progress

Hand size advantages

Do you still teach?

Why am I learning the "nucleus" and not the keys...

I just turned to your Country music [lead playing] section and, it seemed to me that, even unlike rock and blues improvisation, it was even more important for me to play the root note of the chords as the chords change...






I'm stuck in the second section of Book I on barred forms. Should I continue on or just wait till I can play all the barred chords perfectly?
The short answer is continue on and come back as your fingers get stronger. The approach to playing in Fretboard Logic is both guitar-oriented and comprehension-oriented. It is not realistic to expect the fingers of beginners to be able to negotiate the more difficult forms like the C, G and D forms in various positions when they've just learned the basic chord forms in the open position. Furthermore, since they are the most physically difficult, they get used the least, but nevertheless, they are essential to understanding how chords work on the fretboard. This is a major hurdle for some readers and a brick wall for still others. First, recognize that the material is presented in the order that makes the guitar easiest to understand - not play. As you practice, your fingers will get stronger, and you will find that you are doing things you never dreamed you'd be able to do just a few months or even weeks prior. Next, take steps to make your own guitar easier to play using the suggestions provided such as a lower action, lighter tension strings and even tuning down a step or two. As a rule, don't get hung up on any one thing. Avoid unnecessary frustration. Move on and remember to keep coming back as you build up strength. After all, you'll need that strength for other things.
Back To Top

The C Major nuclear form on page 46 doesn't look anything like the C minor nuclear form on page 47 [refers to the Special Edition]...
This is the probably second most common stumbling block we hear about from readers. I suspect there are two sources:: 1. In general, people forget that the positions (and therefore chord names) are unspecified. (It was done that way so the forms could be used in the greatest number of positions,) and
2. More specifically, the problem stems from the anomaly of the open G string in the C form in the open position. The third string is unfretted in the open C nuclear form, making it unrecognizable as a form to be used in other positions.
On page 47 both the Major and the minor nuclear form were moved up one fret to the 1st position so that all three strings would be fretted and more recognizable (and consistent with all the other nuclear forms). The chord at the top of page 47 is musically a C# Major, then C# minor, but that's off the subject. The focus at this point should be on the alterations to the nuclear forms which produce minor from Major. For some people it would be better to start off with the A form alterations first, then do the G, E and D, then come back and do the C last. It may make more sense in that order. In general, once you see the alterations with one form, the others become easier and easier. If this area continues to give you trouble, perhaps it might help to review the section on Naming Chords by Form and Position before proceeding. Back To Top

I understand the naming of the chords by form and position but I'm totally stuck in translating this to the scale forms. I see the positions on page 14-18, but cannot for the life of me associate the identified numbered frets with a typical scale....even just a C scale [does not sound familiar]. I've read and re-read the sections and I'm convinced I'm just missing something. Let me address this by saying that first, the scope of each of the first two volumes in the series is intentionally narrow, and done this way for more than one reason, but mostly to facilitate learning and retention. (Also to be original, and because the guitar is unique, doing A before B, and so on...) So Volume I focuses on the pattern organization of the fretboard first and foremost. Second, you've either seen or soon will see, that there are 3 distinct pattern types which emerge from the standard tuning arrangement of 6 strings tuned 4th 4th 4th 3rd 4th:: 1. Chord Forms
2. Scale Forms
3. Lead Patterns
They are each presented the same four ways and in the same order:: 1. As basic forms first, and then given a guitar description along with an equivalent music name (E.G. "C Form, open Position = C Chord.)
2. As Forms in Positions, again being given a way to describe what we are "seeing" as well as what we are "hearing." On guitar, both are equally important. (E.G. "C Form, 5th Position = F Chord.)
3. As a subset of a larger pattern organization known as the CAGED Sequence
4. And lastly named by Form and Position using a new counting system which works equally well on all the basic forms. (Counting the bar finger fret by fret instead of using a different root on a different string and fret for each different form.)
This produces two ways to Name chords and scales:: 1. Counting the same form fret by fret from the open position, and
2. Counting form-by-form using the CAGED Sequence
Musically, only chords and scales are discussed in Volume I, and each is the smallest and simplest of its kind: Major chords and Pentatonic Scales with a Major tonal orientation. Much other information has been deferred in order to get through this aspect of the system as quickly and painlessly as possible. At this point, the chords will all sound fine and make sense aurally and visually in every position, but do not expect the scales to be as simple. They contain more notes and it is necessary to express them with more specificity than with the chords. This is deferred until Volume II, where the concept of "targeting" certain notes is introduced to produce both a "key" and a "mode" (or tonal orientation) from a given form and position. In Volume I, we assume Major to be the "reference mode" and as with the chords, all the scale forms are named relative to Major. They won't actually sound correct until we agree on exactly which degree will be our starting and stopping place, and that differs with each form. It is not sufficient to simply start and stop on the first/ last note (or finger) in the pattern, as most beginners will assume, because since they are not even the same note in the basic scale forms, that will not produce a definitive key or mode. Targeting, or starting and stopping on a specified degree within the form, is the means by which we get a specific music scale from our guitar scale form fretboard pattern. There are strengths and weaknesses in this approach, but at least it eliminates the typical problems associated with key-mode-form confusion. Plus, it balances out the mental and physical work load. Consider that while the chord forms are easy to recognize and sound right tonally, they are often difficult on your fretting hand to produce satisfactorily (especially the G Form and D Form for most people). While the basic Scale Forms are relatively easy to negotiate for our fretting hand, they are more difficult to recognize until we become specific with our note choices, which complicates things (based on our expectations from the earlier, simpler chord forms.) Later, we will take this same approach a step further and look at targeting as more than merely starting and stopping on a given degree within a form, and we'll discuss "phrasing" our scalar tone groups in such a way as to target appropriately, without being boring or predictable. Playing scales is not playing lead, and in addition to using the right notes among those available, we must now add other elements to our basic materials to produce a desirable result. By starting with the simpler pentatonic scale, we have necessarily disoriented a segment of the guitar-playing population, which is only familiar with "diatonic" or seven-toned scales (D'oh, re, mi, fa, so, la, ti, d'oh...) These are deferred until Volume II, when we begin to assume that people notice the forms and positions, and can assimilate more music-related information without having to go back to "put this finger here, that finger there" thinking. For now it is enought to just be able to name the scale by form and position. You can also skip ahead and find the tonic for each form (in Volume II) and play to and from that note in each form. Your ear will soon recognize these as diatonics minus the 4th and 7th degrees. Back To Top


My teacher said what you are calling the "E diatonic scale form" is the Ionian mode and the "G diatonic scale form" is really just the minor mode...
Questions about Modes are by far the most frequently asked about and, I suspect, the most seldom understood by guitar players. I believe there are two main reasons:: 1. It is a problem that cannot be solved in terms of patterns alone, and
2. Most guitar teachers - yours included - have always taught the various modes as being the diatonic scale forms themselves.
This is wrong for at least two reasons: First, it assumes you play only to and from a certain finger on a certain string, and is therefore self-limiting. Secondly, it fails to distinguish tonal orientation (and key) from fretboard patterns. Fretboard Logic teaches that the patterns are a separate issue entirely from the changes in tonal orientation which produce the different modes. One is a guitar-related issue, the other a music-related one. In Volume II, making the transition from thinking only in terms of patterns to thinking also in terms of tone groups with target notes and tonal orientations becomes essential to several subsequent areas of development. Again, a pattern is a group of visually related notes, a tone group is notes that are aurally (hearing) related. Starting and stopping on a particular note or "targeting" is essential to derive a music scale from a fretboard pattern. Yes, scales and modes work differently from chords. Selecting a group is notes from within a scale form or LP is the first step in the transition from pattern to scale, which in turn, is the first step in learning to phrase notes coherently. Phrasing then leads to playing musically, which can take the form of licks, riffs, leads and melodies. Without considering the target notes within the scale forms and lead patterns, you'll have to phrase all your licks, riffs, leads and melodies to end on the sixth or first string. That's the tail wagging the dog, and one of the flaws in the idea that the patterns, per se, are modes. It also gets down to the essential difference between playing lead and playing scales. I think perhaps the best explanation is in Video II. Hearing the different modes come out of the same scale forms may be the best way to get the ideas separated and understood once and for all. Additionally, there are other discussions on the subject further down in the FAQs. For the record, if another guitar instructor has already taught you that the different scale forms are the different modes period, it will be all the more difficult to make the leap to thinking in terms of a select group of tones within the fretboard form with a target on an inside string. When a new student who'd been taught this by a previous teacher presented me with these preconceptions, I would always simply play the G diatonic scale form (in the 5th position) and start and end on my pinky finger. Then I'd ask them which mode I was playing in. The more certain they were at first, the better the discussion which followed. All that being said, another problem occurs when teachers describe the G Form Scales as "A minor" without further explanation. In most cases, these teachers are essentially rock/blues players, who, I suspect, do not delve into the distinctions of the style. Rock and blues both feature minor-oriented melodic material played against a Major-oriented harmonic background. Their ear is "tuned" to the minor mode because it is the only one with which they are familiar and functional. Furthermore, the blues and rock styles feature melodic materials which are pared down and altered for tonal effect. Instead of diatonic minor, you will typically use pentatonic (five-toned, subtracting the 4th and 7th degrees) minor and adding a flatted 5th degree. Therefore, if, say, you are playing blues or rock in the key of A, the chords would be the principle chords in the key: the 1, 4 and 5 chords, which are now A D and E. (The style often substitutes the 7th or 9th chords for the majors on the 4 and 5 chords making them: A, D 9th and E 9th.) The easiest chord forms for guitar are the E and the A forms, so they will often be used for the harmony part (for example, E form 5th position A form, 5th and A form 7th). So when soloing or improvising against these chords, you will play in the Key of A, using pentatonic minor (with a b5) for the melodic material. Now, the easiest scale form is the G form (pentatonic), which, when located in the 5th position is the key of A in the minor mode (assuming you start and stop on the sixth string index finger, or put another way, target the A.notes.) So it all boils down to this: To keep from confusing people and introducing digression and personal preferences, Fretboard Logic does not discuss stylistic issues until the Applications sections which are in Volume III and the videos. Regardless of what style you or your teacher may prefer, in western music, the reference mode is Major. So all fundamentals in Fretboard Logic are discussed with reference to Major, which includes all the fretboard patterns in Volume I. As the series progresses, we "throw more balls in the air" but only adding one at a time so things don't get too confusing. However many students come to FL after having previous learning experiences and many gaps in their understanding of things. If these issues were raised in the first volume it would be an unfortunate digression and pander to one particular style, suggesting a particular preference. To keep the series structured and unbiased, issues relating to style are reserved until the Applications sections. Fretboard Logic does not dictate or emphasize any particular music style, guitar type or technical approach. The progression in FL is:: 1. The Fretboard,
2. The Tone Groups, and
3. The Applications.
Back To Top

Ok, I have Fretboard Logic SE and I'm working on the scales now and I'm getting confused. I learned some of the C major scale before I got this book and to my knowledge it is correct. Major scales steps go W-W-H-W-W-W-H and so I was looking up on a website that has all the scales with all the notes and your scale forms only have the CAGED notes but as far as a real scale goes there are A-G with sharps or flats in the different scales...
First try to distinguish between patterns that you see, and scales that you play and hear. Second, distinguish between pentatonic and diatonic. If you can differentiate these four categories, you'll understand this area better. We naturally recognize patterns better if they are regular and repeating, but when it comes to guitar, two distinct types of patterns can produce scales: Scale forms and Lead Patterns. Scale forms are irregular shapes in one position. Lead Patterns are regular and repeating, and span several positions. When it comes to forms and positions, COMPLETE PATTERNS are used in order to make them easier to recognize and retain. However, when it comes to scales, or what parts of the pattern you will actually be playing, you must learn to be selective about where you start and stop within the fretboard pattern. The note groupings of scales and modes will certainly be derived from the patterns, but you will have to learn to choose or "target" specific notes from the pattern to get specific results. In addition to starting and stopping on the right notes, you must also begin with the correct pattern, form and position. For example, you won't get a diatonic scale from a pentatonic form (and vice versa). So let's start with just a basic C diatonic Major scale. (I'll be referencing the SE book page numbers.) On page 58 you will find a G diatonic scale form. If you use this form in the 5th position, and target the black notes - meaning start and stop on your pinky finger at the 1st or 6th strings - you will be playing the C Major scale, and the whole step, half step arrangement will be familiar and correlate to what you already know. The next two stages are essential, so don't get sidetracked here. If you change the form AND position to the E form diatonic (the next pattern down on the page) making it an E form in the 8th position (remember with the E form this means your 2ND finger starts on the 8th fret), and play to and from that same note, you will STILL be playing the C Major scale and the W W H, W W W H relationship is the same. What changed is fretboard form and position. The target note stayed the same and the key and mode stayed the same. The exact same group of notes was played, but the guitar form and position changed. Now for part two: Go back to G form in the 5th position. This time play to and from (target) the A notes on the 5th frets (under your index finger, 1st and 6th strings). While the same exact group of notes as before is being played, by changing the target notes, you have changed both the key and the mode. While we retained the original form and position (G Form, 5th Position) the key is now A, and the mode is now minor aka, aeolian. Naturally, the intervallic relationship has changed as well to: W H W, W H W W. This intervallic sequence defines the natural minor scale in any key for all instruments, just as W W H, W W W H defines the Major scale for any key or instrument. The forms and positions, however, are unique to the guitar. Hopefully these examples are sufficient to get you over your hurdles. BTW, I use these examples in Video II to demonstrate the ideas in action, and watching and hearing them played correctly helps cement the ideas better than any FAQ or email could. Once these separate areas are learned, you will be ready for the fun part, which is using them in various playing situations, which is the goal of the method in general, and the DVDs in particular.
Back To Top
I'm a beginner, and today, per your suggestion (Vol. I), I changed the strings on my electric to extra super lights and lowered my action. The chording is 100 percent easier! Maybe the sound isn't as "full" but I'm learning bar chords here, not recording. I suggest you increase your emphasis of this tip, it pulled me out of a mild funk regarding my dexterity. Most importantly I'm relaxing my left hand.
I agree. This is such an important subject that I've moved it up towards the top of the FAQ page (*). As you can imagine I taught a lot of lessons over the years, and watched patterns of behavior recur over and over. For example, without exception, parents of beginning guitar players believed that their kids should "...start on an acoustic and then move up to an electric later on..." whereas the kids, with few exceptions wanted an electric guitar. The painful irony here is that of the three main types of guitar (acoustic, classical and electric), by far the hardest to play is the acoustic steel string. I would always try to explain this, and also strongly advise parents to consider supporting the nascent stylistic choices of their kids to allow for growth later on, but as you can imagine, Mom and Dad weren't interested in any advice from moi. (Actually, I just figured they were doing a little social engineering and/or just trying to save some money.) So the kids got to ride the frustration train as they attempted to play Van Halen with a John Denver guitar. In the lessons, I would let them play my very carefully set up electrics, and the universal response was some variation on "Hey - I can do it on YOUR guitar and it sounds right too. Gimme." I consider the subject of playability to be a major issue in the guitar and music education industries. It's impossible to guess the number of players who gave up - consciously or unconsciously - simply because they didn't know about super light gauges, lower action and tuning down below standard pitch to make it easier in the beginning on tender fingers while they gained strength, toughness and knowledge. Even now no string makers I'm aware of produce a "Super Slinky" equivalent acoustic set, so I use a hand-picked set of .009 -.042 (or else a .010 XL set) acoustic strings on my own acoustics and they play a lot like my electrics. Thanks for raising - literally (*) - an important issue.
Back To Top

After much practice, I'm getting better at playing the bar chords, but I'm still very far from "knowing" which forms in which positions correspond to which chords. Can you suggest a drill or two that will help me exercise and develop my memory of the various possibilities for playing a given chord?
I can think of three distinct ways to learn the names and various permutations of the chords provided by the tuning: 1. Play a form using the last 3 fingers and starting from the open position, and then continually move it one fret higher, describing the Form and Position and naming the chord as you go (until you run out of neck, then change the form and/or reverse direction). E.G.: Starting with the A form open: A, A# B C C# D D# E F F# G G# and A... 2. Play the CAGED chords from the open position and sequence them, one form to the next, describing the Form and Position and naming the chord as you go. 3. Learn some songs or pieces you like and describe/name each chord as you are learning it. Substitute other forms and positions for the ones in the sheet music or tab. We retain what we use the most, and some chords will naturally be easier to recall than others. I feel it is equally important to be able to ascertain these using the FL method, and so be able to easily and quickly determine the correct result both guitar-wise and music-wise. Later, in Volume II, you will need this as a foundation for the chord-building method which will provide you with the next piece of the puzzle, which is the different types of chords and chord families. Volume III will build upon these foundations still further by discussing the various ways in which chords function in progression, in the different styles of music.
Back To Top

I'm really intrigued by your books. As a left-handed player, I'm often frustrated because most of the resources (books, videos, etc.) are created for righties. Are your books and resources available for lefties? If not, what can you recommend for me to overcome this problem? The answer is closer and more accessible than you may think. It may interest you to know (or recall) that our eyes are a relatively simple organ in that they present our brains with information which is vertically inverted. Our brains compensate for this so that everything our eyes present to our brains gets shifted to appear normal. That being said, if you start with the easiest forms, chord forms, and get used to what could be termed "left hand transposition," you will soon find that it becomes at least easier, if not automatic - not unlike the changes we do mentally to the images our eyes present to our brains. Throughout FL, you'll find that the progression is from easier to harder, so you will find a gentle learning curve in your efforts to play left-handed in what is predominantly a right-handed endeavor. On a personal note, as a beginner, I always suspected that being a lefty would have been a big advantage in that I would have more initial control over the fretboard technical issues than a righty. Regardless, I will reiterate that we get used to what we practice the most over time. (For a demonstration, just flip the guitar over to reverse hand positions and then see how well you play even the easiest pieces. It is just like starting from scratch.) That simple fact tends to even out most, if not all of the various issues facing a guitarist, like nylon strings, vs. steel, thick neck vs. thin, small hands vs. large, etc. Bottom line is that learning is all about changing the way we do things, including how we think about things. You've been thinking of left-handedness as a liability, when it might well have some advantages you hadn't yet considered.
Back To Top

I recently purchased SE and the accompanying DVD. The material is great and I've definitely had a few big "ahhh's," but I'm wondering if you can recommend a practice routine to reinforce the material. I'm certain I could put something together, but I thought you might have a schedule or progression that you've thrown together over the years.
Thanks for a good question. To be honest, I don't think that there is any one optimal practice routine which will work for everyone. I generally believe the key to success is self discipline and sustained effort over time. As you know, the guitar requires strength, speed and precision, which can only be acquired by incremental improvement over time. I will say that although more practice is better, than less practice, there seems to be a "curve of effectiveness" at work. In other words, after a point, just playing for hours and hours tends to produce less and less results. I subscribe to the philosophy that if things are going well, keep at it, but if it just isn't happening, go do something else and come back later instead of just wasting time noodling or flogging a finished filly. It's the overall mindset that I'm concerned with. I believe you can only focus for so long, and then fatigue sets in. Lastly, don't work by the clock, work by the job. Did you accomplish what you set out to do? What?? You didn't set any practice goals? Start writing.
Back To Top

Is your title, Fretboard Logic III, in the spiral bound format?
Fretboard Logic Volume III is no longer available in the spiral bound format unless a reseller makes it so as a value-added alteration, (and to which we have no objection). We've changed it to the perfect bound format similar to Fretboard Logic SE. We further enlarged the book to accommodate the transcriptions for the study pieces in Video II and felt the overall thickness and weight was no longer appropriate for the comb binding, plus it just looks better and we could print on the spine for bookstores. Volume I and II are still able to support the combs and will continue to be offered in that format, as are Bass Logic and Melodic Fingerstyle Guitar. The comb bindings look cheesier, but lay nice and flat on a stand.
Back To Top

Does Fretboard Logic use tablature or does it require that you read music?
This is a good question and an important consideration. It gets asked alot because many guitarists have gotten bogged down in the problems associated with applying standard notation (ie., reading music) to the fretboard's bi-dimensional, asymmetrical string-fret arrangement. Don't worry if you can't read and don't even want to. The answer is that the information varies and is presented in the form(s) deemed most appropriate for what is being taught. Furthermore, an effort was made to intentionally duplicate the information in context sensitive formats whenever possible to aid in comprehension and retention. In general some concepts lend themselves best to graphic representation or illustration while others are more abstract and can't be pictured as well. For example, in Vol. I, the pattern organization of the fretboard is presented using both graphs and text on each page to facilitate comprehension (i.e., right brain/left brain). Since the fretboard is pattern oriented, the emphasis is on graphic representations of the patterns. On the other hand the Naming of chords etc., for musical purposes - D D# E F F# etc., - cannot be illustrated as well and so the emphasis is more on a verbal description. As the method progresses, and the foundations are established, other subjects are added in the formats and media best suited to learning them. For example, in the application of the materials in Vols. I and II, videotape is used to demonstrate the principles in action but the transcriptions for the study pieces are written in both tablature and standard notation. So the bottom line is, it doesn't even matter if you can't read music yet because it won't become a factor unless you decide to take your studies in that direction.
Back To Top

Hi. I'm trying to locate a part for my electric guitar called 'The Bill Edwards Finger-Tite Locking Nut" developed by Edwards Guitar Research. Would you be the ones who carry this item?
Well, yes and no. Yes - I started a company called EGR in the late 80s and I did design and patent the original FTLN and BNL (Behind-the-Nut Lock). Unfortunately several companies (both foreign and domestic) liked the idea so much they ripped it off and put out their own more or less half-assed imitations - most of which did not work properly, if at all. They "poisoned the well," as they say and put an end to it. So... No - it's not available any longer. It's a really long story and the bottom line is that it is an example of what can sometimes happen to well-meaning back room inventors who get mixed up with well established companies with well intrenched rivalries. It's nice to hear that someone remembers it after all these years. It remains to this day, the best way eliminate the wrenches and associated stripping of the hex screws while clamping the strings securely at the nut. I use it on my own electrics and have for years. One of these days I may try to revive the thing, but for now I'll stick to publishing. I've still got an original idea for a independent string variable pitch tremolo I designed years ago but never prototyped because, well, lets just say I have a low pain threshold.
Back To Top

I am interested in lessons with a registered teacher. I found one who is about a half hour drive from home. I wonder how/if you "qualify" teachers for registration? I guess any instructor who learns your books could qualify. Our Teacher and Student pages are a free BBS (Bulletin Board Service) for our customers. We don't actually qualify teachers, just register them. Every instructor must be appropriate for his or her students in ways that only the student can determine - regardless of what method he or she uses. I believe it is the responsibility of each student to "qualify" the teacher to determine whether that person will be appropriate for their individual needs. We do have plans for a teachers manual designed specifically for the needs of those instructors using Fretboard Logic in their lessons.
Back To Top

I don't understand what you are talking about when you refer to the 4th,4th,4th,3rd,4th. I have read and re-read that section dozens of times and, for what ever reason, I'm just not getting it.
The 4th, 4th, etc. referred to is the intervallic distance between the guitar's strings as tuned. If you are unfamiliar with intervals, they are:
1. the distance between any two notes (defined by steps and half steps) inclusive, or
2. any two notes (defined the same way.) The bass string on a guitar is an E. The next string is an A. Think of steps (for now) as the music alphabet: E-F-G-A (back to A since there is no "H" etc., in music) or 1-2-3-4. Therefore, E to A is a "4th." The next two (bass) strings are A to D. A-B-C-D or 1-2-3-4. The interval of A to D is also a 4th. Then D-E-F-G, also a 4th. Then G-A-B (1-2-3) or a 3rd. Last set is B to E or B-C-D-E... another 4th. Again: E-A = 4th or four notes alphabetically (there is no "H" or "I" letters in the music alphabet - A, B, C, D, E, F, G - then G goes back to A.)
A-D = 4th
D-G = 4th
G-B = 3rd B-E = 4th.
Back To Top

Will the DVDs be made available for the European market?
Yes. Country codes for Europe & Japan plus So. America & Australia are included in the latest release of the Fretboard Logic DVD. This upgrade also includes requested features such as interactive menus, chapter stops and jam track loops.
Back To Top

I am currently working through volume two, and have a question. In the first section, you discuss the building of major, minor, augmented and diminished triads. While I understand the process of locating the 1,3,5 degrees - and sharping or flatting accordingly, I am confused about one issue in particular. On page 47, your illustrate the nuclear forms of the basic C,A,G,E,D forms...but note that the forms illustrated are taken directly from the basic forms, but are not necessarily in the same positions. You do not, however, explain how these slightly adjusted forms are created. As such, while I understand the basic point you are making - I have absolutely no idea how to take a basic C form for instance, and play the form you are showing on page 47. Am I being dense? Any help would be appreciated. This is a bona fide FAQ. (For our FAQ readers, page 47 refers to the SE version - see page 3 in Volume II). The C form does not translate to a nuclear form in the open position (C Chord) without "fretting" the open third string at the nut. Therefore it was moved up a fret so all three fingers could actually fret a note and there would be no open strings in the form (and so be consistent with the other nuclear forms - none of which feature open strings.) To better understand what you are looking at, first fret the full C form in the first position. Play only strings 5, 4 and 3. Then take your fingers off all but the 5th, 4th and 3rd fretted strings. What remains is the "C Form Nucleus" and what is pictured at the top of the page. Play the same three strings again and you will hear what I mean. With my private students it was easy to demonstrate, because my fingers would come off one at a time without the chord going to pieces. As I played the three strings, they could hear the similarities as they watched the fingering changes take place. The trick seems to be converting the bar to fretting just the 3rd string without moving the pinky or ring fingers. For a lot of people, it is somewhat easier to recognize the G Form Nucleus as residing on the last three strings (6,5 and 4). The C Form Nucleus is identical, except it is on the next three strings (5,4 & 3) . Again, as you are converting from a full form to a nucleus, play just the three strings in question. Some of the trouble in this area stems from the fact that many people learn on acoustic guitars with relatively heavy strings, and fretting barred forms in the first position is too physically difficult because of the string gauges and proximity to the nut. This section might be easier in general if people would start with the A form nucleus and end with the C form. That the first nuclear form in the sequence has an open string is just another anomaly of the tuning system.
Back To Top

The material is wonderfully clear and straight forward. I'm thinking of asking my own instructor to incorporate your material into his lessons with me. He is a very good instructor, of 24 and he is only 5 minutes from home. Additionally, I already have a working relationship with him... This is the only way many of our registered teachers ever find out about our stuff. Many excellent instructors who've never even heard of Fretboard Logic become registered teachers as a direct result of students bringing it to them in a lesson. Mostly as a result of disappointments with old style methods, many teachers become disillusioned with instructional books in general and consider them outdated, irrelevant or underpowered as a rule. They will then develop their own style of teaching, which will incorporate various elements from their own learning experiences adapted for each student. Having done this, I personally found that this approach wasted a lot of valuable time in my lessons because of having to manually write out basic (and not so basic) information over and over - taking up time which could be better used attending to each student's individual needs. A fundamental premise of the method is that different things are best presented in different formats. Just as some things are more easily grasped from looking at a picture rather than hearing an explanation, there are some things a book can do best and some things a teacher can do best. Fretboard Logic was designed to allow teachers to be flexible with all the different needs of the different students they will work with as time goes by and styles change.
Back To Top

I have FLSE, have worked my way thru Vol. 1, and agree that you deserve the Nobel Prize for contributions to the arts. Working thru Vol. 2 now slowly and patiently; for me, a large part of the reward is the patient journey, not hurrying thru the text only to arrive at the last page with incomplete knowledge. BTW I admit to reading, re-reading and re-reading again a bazillion times until the subject matter sticks. Having read some of the [earlier] FAQ's, I see that too many people are so impatient; their goal is to reach the last page, not to absorb the information. Therefore they ask questions of you, only to be rebuked with a "If you'll go back and look at XXXX..." Please consider adding a caveat to future editions, to the effect that "you'll only get out of this course what you put into it". Stress patience, contentment with taking "baby steps", and reemphasize your comments about "it's better to go slowly and learn correctly the first time, than to do a rush job and have to go back, unlearn, and relearn correctly"... May I suggest that you recommend using "flash cards" to help memorize the fretboard, i.e. on one side of an index card write "A Form, 5th Position" and on the reverse side "D". Works for me! Thanks for your extremely kind comments and an interesting email. True, the answers to most of the questions I get are already covered in the books and videos. I often find myself looking up page numbers and citing references. I also respond to more than a few "corrections" regarding apparent deficiencies in one book, of material contained in another which they haven't yet gotten, which is a little frustrating. This has been a frequent source of aggravation, and at one point I guess I responded to three of the most common examples of this in the FAQs and later removed both the questions and my responses as unrepresentative and, well, cranky. Hey - it's the learning thing. We all do the best we can. So I appreciate your thoughts in this matter. I certainly did not intend to be "rebuking" anyone - just reminding them. Gently as possible. Rereading and replaying are essential to the learning process. By far, the most frustrating is the occasional negative Amazon feedback where someone cites something they wish the book had which is - you guessed it - already in one (or another) of the books they are criticizing, but they just didn't notice it or understand what they were learning. That, and the people who attempt to describe the contents of the books to others, but are not adequately equipped, and so give flawed interpretations and scare off potential customers who would otherwise benefit greatly. I wrote and edited the first two volumes so that the material that was left would be irrefutable and not subject to debate. You can't imagine how hard it is for me to read critical comments by folks who obviously have not grasped what they were reading and go on to make false or misleading statements about the content of the method. Amazon does not provide a means for authors to respond to reader's individual comments. Playing music requires sustained, effort, incremental improvement and constant refinement. Henry Ford once said "Thinking is the hardest work there is. That's why so few people engage in it." I suspect that learning is among the hardest types of thinking. It is for me, anyway.
Back To Top

Bill I love your books. I am very interested to know how you would inlay your fretboard? You said that the dots were a bad thing.
OK you're right - I DID say they were "bad" (and I shouldn't let myself get caught in such a blatant generalization, except that it worked in context). More to the point, there isn't any demonstrable relevance with respect to the tuning system or the resultant pattern organization. I can't even detect the merest musical relevance and they are not even symmetrical. As if that weren't enough, they're not even consistent from guitar to guitar. If the dots are there, they become a crutch, just as when they aren't there - as on many classical guitars - you don't really miss 'em unless you happen to be switching over from a "dotted" fretboard. Personally, I like the idea of two dots or markers: one for the fifth fret (and 17th) at the approximate geographical center(s) of the fretboard and one at the 12th for the octave. That makes sense to me, but I doubt any luthiers are going to change that particular horse midstream. The utility of the marker dots has been subjugated by their ornamental and decorative appeal. For many guitar builders and players, the marker inlays are considered a minor art form.
Back To Top

Volume I pages 1 and 2, the sixth strings of the C A and D basic forms are "Xed" out, but on page 5 they aren't. What gives?
Very observant. Remember that some people who read Fretboard Logic are just starting out. For stock beginners I just wanted the basic chords to be played from the roots for their first impressions. For beginners, root-based triads seem to sound more correct and are easier to relate to than those with 3rds or 5ths in the bass. Plus it made each form more musically consistent to be played from the root. The D form had both the 6th and 5th strings Xed indicating they should be played from the 4th string. Since the 6th strings on all the basic chord forms but D Form are chord tones, they were later changed (de-Xed) when the forms were made movable to indicate that they could be included as chord tones.
Back To Top

Hi, my first question for you. On page 25 of FL2 under natural minor you give the formula for natural minor (1,2,b3,4,5,b6,b7). Then down the page you give the notes for the relative E-minor as:E,F#,G,A,B,C,D. I fail to see the connection here.
There are at least three things you need to know for this: 1. The key signature of E (Major); 2. That flatting a sharp note produces a natural; 3 The definition of "relative." The comprehension problem probably stems from the fact that musicians generally think of the Major mode as a natural reference point. The key of E has four sharps: F# C# G# and D#. Therefore the notes in E (Maj.) are E F# G# A B C# and D#. (The tonality of any key not otherwise specified is assumed to be Major. Similarly, any degree not otherwise specified as sharp or flat is assumed to be natural.) Flatting the third produces "G" (natural). Flatting the sixth and sevenths produces C and D (both natural). The result is E-1, F#-2, G-3, A-4, B-5, C-6, and D-7 where the letters are the notes and the numbers are the degrees. This is the "E (natural) minor scale." Now for the "relative" part. The same exact group of notes rearranged to start with the letter "G" produces the G Major Scale. G=1, A=2, B=3, C=4, D=5, E=6, F#=7. Same notes, different order means a different tonal orientation, (aka mode or tonality) and a different key: G. They are "related" by content, but different by tonal orientation and target. The Major and minor modes are so prevalent in music of the last few centuries, those with identical note groupings are considered "relatives." You wouldn't hear the term "relative dorian" used, although it could also be applied similarly.
Back To Top

The computations used on pp 158,159 in Fretboard Logic III are a bit confusing. The formula given implies linearity from the reference tone, when in fact the calculation is exponential/logarithmic. In particular your example is: Fr(2 ** 1/12) N First I think you mean: F = r(2**1/12) N. The sample computations imply multiplication of the reference pitch times the 12th root of 2 times the number of semitones above the reference. "Example: To find C above A 440: 440 (1.059463094593) 3 = 440 (1.1892071150027) = 523.25113060119 = 523.25 (p. 158 Fretboard Logic III). The preceding example implies that 3 times the 12th root of 2 is 1.1892071150027; which it is not. 1.1892071150027 is the 12th root of 2 to the third power; the multiplier for the reference frequency. A clearer way of expressing your examples would be: 440 (1.059463094593) ** 3 = 440 (1.1892071150027) = 523.25113060119 = 523.25. This shows the exponentiation. Alternatively, a full computerese syntax specification removes all doubt from the nature of the computation: 440 * (1.059463094593) ** 3 Thus your original formula could be specified: F = r (2 ** 1/12) ** N or F = r (2 ** N/12) because (2 ** N/12) = (2 ** 1/12) ** N Thanks for the wonderful books. Since I've read FB3 I have written programs to compute the frequencies in various tuning systems and analyzed the trade-offs between them. Equal temperament is mentioned in music theory classes, often without any meaningful explanation. The ability to relate it to the physics of the matter is enlightening. Your story about the fellow that wanted to weld the guitar "in tune" is hilarious. I see now why "perfect pitch" would be a bane, thank goodness I don't have it! I hope this helps. Sincerely, Charles Wesolowski Chief Software Engineer, Advanced BMC4I Systems Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company
Thank you for your clarifications and insights. I will make the necessary changes for the next edition. [Done.] Since I'm not as familiar with the (**) designation indicating exponentiation, and since that likely goes for most of my readers, I'll raise the numerics and decrease the size as is more common. If it looks like I zipped through the formulas to get to the frequencies, then guilty as charged. I'll plead "new math" and throw myself on the mercy of the court. For obvious reasons, I seldom put the identities of questioners up on the FAQ page, but this is one of my all time favorites. One of the side benefits of the business I'm in is that I get to meet and hear from a lot of very smart and interesting people, including rocket scientists.
Back To Top

I was wondering how much do you think perfect pitch would help a guitar player improvise and what is your definition of it? Do you think people are born with it or learn it?
Another bona fide FAQ. I've had numerous inquiries over the years relating to both perfect pitch per se, and the "Perfect Pitch" eartraining course. I'll consolidate them here and respond to both. "Perfect pitch" is a euphemism for absolute pitch, which according to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music, is "the sense some people possess of the actual pitch of any note heard." To this I will add three things: 1) any instrument or octave is implied, 2) that no given reference tone is implied, and 3) by "pitch" what is meant is the letter name and not the frequency to any degree of accuracy. This so-called perfect pitch is often mistaken for relative pitch, which "...implies the recognition of a note as being a certain degree of the scale or as lying at a certain interval above or below another note heard." It is common to teach relative pitch by recognizing and recalling intervals from well known pieces. For example a Perfect 4th is "Here Comes the Bride" and a Maj. 6th is "My Bonnie Lies Over The Ocean" and so on. It is likely that many of the people who claim to possess "perfect pitch" have memorized one or more pitches and use them to calculate the target note (relatively). All that being said, I certainly am aware that some people possess inexplicable innate abilities, many of whom in the field of music have been well documented, so yes, I believe some people are "just born with it." My own definition "perfect pitch" would be something like the ability to hear a sound and give the frequency in terms of a numeric to four decimal places, and the timbre in terms of a Fourier analysis, again to 4 decimal places, etc. - in other words to such a degree that is not humanly possible - the point being that it is hair-splitting of the highest order and not directly helping anyone to play guitar better. More to the point, anyone who is born with such a highly refined aural palette would hardly describe it as a blessing - more like tinnitus, I imagine. (I've had to turn the sound down on the "Blind Date" guitarist who is apparently both inexperienced with bends and tone deaf. That opening bend is almost a quarter tone off the target.) I'm on record as saying that if you want to get better at guitar, practice more, study more, play more and push yourself to accomplish more. Try to focus in two distinct ways: 1) the intensity of each individual effort and 2) sustaining those efforts over time. Raising the bar tends to produce measurable results (and not just with guitar.) Regarding the "Perfect Pitch" eartraining course, although I've never had any personal interest or involvement in this, I have had several readers who had bought and gone through the course and then described it the same way to me. It is a product which is heavily advertised in guitar magazines, but which I'm told is taught at a piano. As described, it appears to be another in a long line of what are known as "color music schemes." These have been around for centuries. The idea is to relate each of the diatonic scale tones to one or another of the colors in the visible light spectrum. It is interesting to note that none of the promoters of these schemes were ever able to agree on which tone should be which color. A well known implementation of this idea was the Lowery organ, which featured back-lit keys of differing colors. Very pretty and they sold a bunch of em but I don't know of any world class organists who attribute their success to the colored keys of the Lowery organ. For the record, I categorize color music schemes along with "Every Good Boy Does Fine" and "FACE" where things have been added or increased to presumably simplify a separate system (see FL II & III on Standard Notation for the details). This is not unlike trying to patent another guy's invention by adding on parts which do nothing to significantly improve the way it works. Example: If someone tried to patent a pencil with, say, two erasers claiming twice the erasing power, it would get shot down by the examiner post haste, and rightfully so. On the other hand, if someone developed a way to eliminate the need for the eraser through some kind of improvement to the lead, that would qualify for further examination and possibly a patent. In other words, a reduction of elements is generally a patentable improvement, an addition of elements is not. Adding colors to scale tones does not help one understand tonal relationships quite as much as it helps the publishers of color music schemes. I will also add a personal observation based on a comment made to me by the (then) advertising director of one of the major guitar magazines years ago. I was told that this product was the source of the majority of complaints to their magazine because it offered a "money-back guarantee" which was invalidated if you opened the box. Talk about a "perfect pitch" - brings to mind the carnival barkers of the bad old days.("Step right up folks and see the Man-Eating-Chicken!!") I sincerely hope that is not still their company's policy. And lastly, to this day I still get email from people asking me about this product and the people behind it, but I'm not entirely sure why. I get asked questions, like do I know anything about the relationship between the author of this system and the Maharishi, transcendental meditation and/or the Maharishi University, (which I've been told have the same mailing address.) Over the years, I've heard many rumors including the ones to the effect that the costly advertising done for this product might not be financed by product sales alone, and that purchasers of this type of thing are considered likely candidates for the Maharishi's, uh, following. (Reminds me of the nose hair clippers from the old days which were advertised in the backs of certain magazines. Buy one of those babies and you got put on umpteen kinds of mailing lists for all kinds of weird wild stuff.) I will finally respond to all of these questions here once and for all: I don't know and I don't care. Questions such as these are so far off the subjects of guitar and music that they do not merit consideration. Furthermore, I do not wish to correspond with anyone who is affiliated in any way with these people, including those who simply wish to offer me their opinions. Please please please, don't write to me with anymore opinions, questions or concerns about David Burge, the Maharishi, or the Perfect Pitch system. I simply will not respond.
Back To Top

Are the videos available in PAL or SECAM format?
NTSC and DVD only. We feel the new DVD technology will soon supplant the PAL and SECAM formats and eventually, perhaps NTSC as well.
Back To Top

My question pertains to the key I'm playing in. If a C scale form is played in the open position, is this the key of C, and are the subsequent forms of the caged sequence played down the neck in the key of C also? Basically, how do I know what key I'm playing in?
This is one of the areas I get the most questions about. Let me start with the common usage (and understanding) of the term "key." A musician will ask, for example,"What key is it in?" and another musician will answer, for example, "A minor." But what if they answered, "A Major?" Or perhaps, "C Major." Are they actually three different keys? Most musicians do consider them different keys, but I have a slightly different perspective which, I'm sure, many musicians and musicologists will relegate to mere semantics. It boils down to what you mean by the term key, which I take to be just a group of related notes. The problem comes when you have to consider the idea of different tonal orientations (modes) of the same group of notes. For me, key and tonal orientation are separate issues, and should be verbally differentiated. In traditional music theory, we distinguish keys exclusively by their "signature," which simply specifies which which notes are altered, or "not natural." (It'll be a series of either sharps or flats.) But the problem is that the "key" of C Major and the "key" of A minor have exactly the same key signature and notes. Same with G Maj. and E minor, and so on. So the question becomes, "What is the difference between C Major and A minor? The answer, again, is "tonal orientation." In the key of C Major, the phrasing of the melodic content is "centered," "directed" or "targeted" toward the C note. Harmonically, the C Major chord will be the 1 chord, G will be the 5, or dominant, and so on. Conversely, in A minor, the phrasing of the melodic content is centered or targeted toward the A note. Harmonically, the Am chord is the 1 chord, and E is the 5 chord, and so on. I think of it like this: Given the notes C D E F G A B (and back to) C. The "key" is "C" and the tonal orientation is Major. Rearranging the same notes thusly: A B C D E F G (and back to) A, the "key" is "A" and the tonal orientation is minor. Carried one more step: the same notes arranged D E F G A B C (and back to) D is the "key" of "D" and the tonal orientation is dorian. So your question pertains to "Key" alone, but should also include the concept of tonal orientation. Otherwise you won't get the entire picture in focus. For pianists, that pretty much ends the discussion except to apply it to other keys. For guitarists however, another dimension entirely must be included: the concept of scale forms, (and LPs) or patterns on the fretboard which result from the tuning. In order to produce the C Major scale, you must (at least) start and end on the C note, and include the notes of the key of C. (This assumes diatonic. For pentatonic, omit the 4th and 7th degrees.) For guitarists, the idea of tonal orientation is something of a bugaboo, since we usually like to start our scale forms with the index or middle finger on the sixth string. To play in the key of C Major using an E (diatonic) form in the 8th position, you would start with the middle finger (on the C note.) To play in the key of C Major using the G (diatonic) form in the 5th position, you would start with the pinky finger (on the same C note.) If you grasp these concepts for the above referenced keys, then it should easily apply to other keys and tonal orientations. If you grasp these relationships with C Maj./A min., then try it with G Maj./E min. next, and so on.
Back To Top

I was watching a video that reviewed what he called an "Am pentatonic" scale. He was showing how to add the flattened 5th to make it an "A Blues Scale" (he was on the first fret). Well, as far as I can tell, this is just a G form pattern in the 5th position (I double and triple checked my FL books to make sure). So I guess my question is, why does he call it an A Blues Scale (the key of A), when as far as I can tell, it is in the key of C. I'm only asking because I am starting to improvise in lead playing and I don't want to tell someone I am jamming in the key of C when in fact it is the key of A or Am. How do I tell the difference? This question is very similar to the one above it, and again, probably the subject most frequently asked about. It comes at the problem from another direction, though. First I want to address the all too common usage of the term "blues scale." Thousands of guitarists and teachers use this term routinely, but I find it inappropriate for two reasons: one, because it suggests that the note selection is intended for use with blues exclusively, and two, it implies that if you use that tone group, you are playing blues. Both are assumptions - not givens. Next I want to address the use of the term "A minor pentatonic," which seems to be an incantation of sorts for budding lead players everywhere. I would say that the term is overused and under-grasped. Many guitar teachers repeat it, I'm sure, because they feel it sounds somewhat sophisticated. The overuse of the Greek names for tonal orientations occasionally falls into the same pathology and can be contagious. It is also a way for teachers to head off any pesky questions that may arise in a complicated subject and let him or her skirt the issues by baffling the student with big, important-sounding (and distracting) words. Ok, now that I've got that off my chest, I'll address your question more directly. Keep in mind that for learning purposes, the guitar-oriented materials were presented in Vol. I and the concepts and terminology were guitar-related. Music-oriented issues were introduced in Vol. II, but restricted to one category: tone groupings. In your question, you are applying a guitar-oriented term and the author is applying a musical description. These distinctions are examined in detail in both Book II and Video II. There are three separate balls you will need to keep in the air to fully grasp the concept: Fretboard Form, Key and Tonal Orientation (or mode). In your example, although "he was on the first fret" is a little vague (and probably an error), I'm assuming you are correct in identifying the Form and Position given as G Form, 5th position. Since I must also assume we are attempting to sound "bluesy" I'm going to take as given that we are playing against a 1-4-5 "12 bar blues" type progression in the Key of A (for example, the chords A Maj. or Dom. 7th, D 9th, and E 9th). It is important to understand that in the style of blues, it is typical to play "minor against Major" or minor melodic content against a predominantly Major harmonic content (or chord progression). This is a given of the style. This melodic tonal orientation does not change with the chord changes - only the target notes change - an important concept explored in Video I. So in our lead playing, our key is "A" but the tonal orientation is, because it is blues, minor. In short, the fretboard form is G form, the key is A, and the tonal orientation, or mode, is minor (or Aeolian if you want to sound sophisticated.) In Vol. I, the naming conventions were assumed to be Major-oriented because, Major is still the reference standard (remember "relative" minor? Relative to what? Major - that's what). That's probably why you assumed you were in the key of C. You started out with one air-ball, the fretboard form, and now you have three: form, key and mode. I want to reiterate that the second section of Video II is devoted to these issues and goes into much better detail. I wouldn't necessarily expect someone to understand it from the above explanation, but they would after having done Book II and Video II. I will say that these types of problems are thorny for students and teachers alike. In my case, to finally understand these things, I had to forget what my teachers taught me and back up and start over from scratch on my own - but in retrospect, I'm glad I did. Finally, I will reiterate that in general, the first order of business is to first distinguish fretboard-related concepts from those which are music-related.
Back To Top

When was the semi-acoustic guitar invented, and by who?
Thanks for your email and questions. I'm familiar with the term "semi-hollow bodied electric" but not "semi-acoustic." Can you define the term or at least be a little more specific? An example would help. A semi-acoustic guitar is an acoustic guitar that has pickups which you can plug into an amplifyer.(sic) Ok, first things first. An acoustic guitar with a pickup(s) is not termed "semi-acoustic" amongst any professional musicians I know. The term "acoustic-electric" is commonly used for this particular arrangement. Next, I've read several accounts chronicling the advent of the electric guitar - specifically the solid-body electric. At least 5 persons claim to be the first with this combination of elements: Adolph Rickenbacher, Merle Travis, Harold Bigsby, Leo Fender and, of course, Les Paul. Each makes a good, albeit unproven, argument for being the primogenitor of the Solid Body Electric. Each person has credible evidence, and each one is knowledgeable, plausible and reliable. However, The first person to put a pickup to an acoustic guitar appears to be less in dispute: Les Paul. In the 1930s he played guitar in a country band under the moniker "Rhubarb Red" and noticed that when he played louder, and the patrons actually heard his stuff, he got better tips. So he got the idea to take the stylus off his gramophone (ie., needle off his record player) and jam it into the bridge of his guitar, which of course, was acoustic. This was a substantial improvement in the volume department, and a stepping stone to his seminal work in the fields of music and electronics. I don't have source citations for this assertion (due to time constraints), but I don't currently know of any others making a claim to have amplified an acoustic guitar by electrical means prior to the 1930s. Additionally, because of the breadth and range of his patents, Mr. Paul's credentials are among the best in the industry.
Back To Top

Hi Bill, allow me to add accolades for your books. I gained a great deal from Volume 1, am currently plodding through Volume 2 and have Volume 3 on my bookshelf, waiting. I'm simultaneously studying Noad's Solo Guitar series. My question pertains to alternate tunings. I've seen many interesting pieces that specify alternate tunings, but have yet to read about the process. Two possibilities appear to me, but neither makes a lot of sense...
A. Does the use of an alternate tuning imply that the guitarist will simply assign some new tones to some old familiar positions/notes or...
B. Is the use of an alternate tuning just some ones sick idea of scrambling up an already complex fretboard that you have so painstakingly and wonderfully helped me clear up in my mind, or...
C. None of the above???
I would only say that alternate tunings present the guitarist with a different kind of instrument. Some of my favorite pieces are in alternate tunings, but they require that I think about things differently. Obviously, there will be advantages and disadvantages.
Among the advantages are: 1. Unusual tonal results from familiar fretboard patterns.
2. Greater tonal range (as they often involve lowered bass strings.)
3. Unexpected and unpredictable sounds which cause us to experiment and try new things. New possibilities are created. Among the disadvantages: 1. A reduction of the digital/polyphonic efficiency.
2. Lack of familiarity.
Back To Top

I'm sure that you've gotten many letters like this before, but I just wanted to thank you for such a wonderful book. I could have sworn that I was going to be a famous guitarist one day wielding my polyphonic matrix to its utmost after reading your first book. Unfortunately, I ran away a few weeks later at age 14 and survived until I was old enough to join the military. I'm a submariner on a nuclear attack sub now. (And part time guitarist, now that I can afford a guitar again!) I want your first book again and the rest, as well, this time. I can finally devote my time to the guitar, since there's no one left to run away from now!!! Thanx!
First, let me assure you I've never received a letter quite like yours before. Thanks for making my day. I suspect the period in your life prior to your enlistment is worthy of a book of its own. Fretboard Logic has grown into three books and two videos since the days when, after completing (what is now) Volume One, I sat back and said somewhat optimistically, "Whew, now that monster's done and I can get back to more important things." Heh. So who really knows what directions our lives will take... and why? I will say this, though. I do hear back from a lot of people. You'd be amazed at the number and variety of people who's lives are influenced by their guitar-related experiences. I often hear from doctors, lawyers, engineers - you name it - who, after a career in their chosen fields are returning to the guitar to respond to a long-deferred call for something deeper and more meaningful in their lives. I guess music has the power to affect some of us in ways that we can't accurately predict. Thanks again for an interesting and one of a kind letter.
Back To Top

I'm not comfortable ordering over the internet. Can you send me a catalog with all of Bill's works in it? Please advise.
Absolutely. In fact, some of us vaguely recall the days when it was considered reckless to order by credit card over the telephone. We will gladly mail out a print catalog and order form to anywhere in the world or you can just print the order form off the net and mail it in. If you do this, please remember to include at least $5.00 for shipping and handling.
Back To Top

Something that was mentioned, but not really addressed in terms of the CAGED sequence was chord inversion. I am sure it fits in somehow, but I can't visualize it (yet). Any comments on this?
In Volume II, page 2 a reference is made to the pianistic term "inversion." Keep in mind that most instruments are monophonic and so chords cannot be played except "as arpeggios" which to some of us, is a contradiction of terms. Terms such as "inversion" may similarly be restricted to keyboard-interfaced polyphones (multi-instrument arrangements notwithstanding). My objection to the use of this term for guitarists stems primarily from the collateral use of the descriptive term "root position," which applies appropriately enough to keyboards. The term "position" has a different meaning on a fretboard and there are no "root position" chords on a guitar (except in the minds of those players who've not yet worked out the details of the terminology.) Naturally, we are able to invert the order of chord tones on a guitar, but using the term "inversion" seems grossly inappropriate, given the two dimensions in which tones increment on a fretboard. More importantly, there is another, more fundamental, system already in place which takes into account the bi-dimensionality (and irregularity) of the guitar's playing area. Many will feel the comfortable tossing all of this off as mere semantics. I feel differently, though. This falls into the same category in my mind as the fundamental differences between "notes" and "tones." I submit that more than semantics are at stake. The term note is more conceptual, a tone being more actual. I strongly disagree with musicologists and professors who state with conviction that "chords are derived from scales." My position is that if you can understand the distinction between notes and tones, then you can similarly discern the difference between keys and scales. I submit that scales are realized when certain tones are played, whereas keys are conceptual in nature - like notes. Put another way, scales are the actualized degrees of a key. Therefore chords and arpeggios are similarly derived from keys - just like scales. I hammer on these ideas as essential to getting to a stronger, more functional understanding of music, by building on strong foundations. After all, music, in a sense, is ideas put into actuality. The first step in learning just about anything is being able to communicate effectively. Playing portions of the G form, the C form and the E form will permit inversion from string to string, (starting from the 6th, 5th and 4th strings respectively) but the other two forms won't.
Back To Top

Why are the Canadian and International prices for your books higher than the U.S. prices?
The Canadian and International prices for our products are slightly higher for several reasons. The first reason involves the extra time required for processing. All countries require that various additional forms be filled out prior to export, and these must be done on a one-by-one basis and often by hand, which makes it even more time consuming. Second, shipments to other countries involve greater risk and the likelihood of loss or delay. When a delay is reported, we must stop and respond to calls and emails, and attempt to locate packages thousands of miles away, and more often than not, the reason is because of something the customer themselves did or did not do (such as verify the address they entered or go to their local post office to see if it is there waiting to get picked up.). Third, often there are hidden or after-the-fact charges passed along to us by the carriers, such as fuel surcharges, dimensional weights or wrong address charges. Worst of all, in many countries, sad to say, there is an unusually high incidence of "shrinkage" or internal losses in the cartage business, and sometimes our shipments just "fall off the truck." All this translates to higher ongoing costs to us and the decision to charge a little more for International orders was the only solution. On the other hand, while inflation is rampant almost everywhere else, we have not raised the prices of our products in twenty years.
Back To Top

Will you be offering advanced videos for Fretboard Logic II and III?
Good question. After much debate, Video I was finally labeled "Beginner to Intermediate Lead Player" since it focuses exclusively on Lead Playing and it ranges in difficulty from fairly easy to moderately difficult. If I was teaching a stock beginner, I wouldn't be working on the material in Video I until the basics from Book I were well in hand, so to speak. Our customer feedback suggests that V1 is perceived to be slightly more intermediate than beginner level, but that depends on the player, of course. V2 has been labeled "Intermediate" although one reviewer suggested that toward the end it was NOT intermediate level (meaning more advanced, but again...). V3 will most likely be labeled "Advanced." These are very subjective terms and not necessarily accurate or revealing, but give more of a sense of the author's gut feeling of the level of difficulty most players will encounter. BTW, the vehicle for V2's subject matter is solo guitar instrumentals in various styles where each piece focuses on a particular tone group with a different type of guitar and a different style of music. The idea I'm currently pursuing for V3 is to take simple technical exercises or devices and develop them into showpieces.
Back To Top

I am a huge Eddie Van Halen fan and have, for some time, been trying to unlock the "secret" of his style. I own Curt Mitchell's "In the Style of" Eddie Van Halen video, found it interesting, but not all that insightful. My question for you is this: As I understand Ed's approach toward improvisation/soloing, he uses symmetrical patterns more than traditional scales/modes, if not exclusively. Can you offer any insight into how he constructs his symmetrical patterns, how he knows what patterns will work where, and how he has mapped out the fretboard w/ these patterns? There must be some logic to his solo approach.
I too have studied Mr. Van Halen's playing style, but I would not be willing to venture too many generalizations about his approach. The reason is because he is versatile and does many different things well. I would describe him as a very inventive player, and further say he broke a few molds in his day. He had phenomenal technique which he worked on every day. He did not, however, possess a right hand fingerstyle technique, but had such mastery of the pick style that he often found workarounds for his limitations. The tremolo effect in Little Guitars is an example. He called it "cheating." I call it clever and inventive. If you pick a player who has less range than Mr. Van Halen, I may make some generalizations about aspects of his or her approach, but not him. He did too many different things - well. I will say that he pushed himself pretty hard right from the start. He experimented, composed, took risks, practiced and did all the things a professional musician should do, and became a bona fide rock star. I think he copied his predecessors at first, but soon realized that he'd only make it if he found a new way of approaching things. If you want that kind of success, my recommendation is that you start writing songs and playing in clubs, and constantly try to better your last effort in each case. And don't let up. As far as fretboard patterns are concerned. I doubt you'll hear any used on Mr. Van Halen's albums that aren't already somewhere in the the Fretboard Logic series, and that includes symmetrical forms or three-note-per-string forms. (I won't say that's all he used, because I know it isn't.) But, if you know the fretboard forms in FL well, you'll start to recognize them in guitar pieces - his and other guitarist's as well. Look for the easiest way to do things, and you'll find the form most likely used. The important thing is HOW they get used. Knowing the forms is just one piece of the puzzle - the part relating to left hand technique. There are many other puzzle parts which go into hit guitar songs. That is the subject of the Applications sections of FL: Vol. III and the videos. Learning to recognize all the elements in the equation and being able to control and vary them is the thing.
Back To Top

How does one make the jump from the study of guitar and all the learning required, to music? Not the kind of music produced as a result of left brained analytical thinking and the learning process, but the naturally flowing intuitive music of the right brain. Music that flows without the consciousness of technique. What is necessary to make that jump? Yours is a fundamental question and gets right to the heart of certain issues in music. I firmly believe there are vastly different yet equally correct answers to that one very broad question. The way Francisco Tarrega processed musical ideas as he composed was not the same as the way BB King, or say, Merle Travis or Django Reinhardt thought. Each used creative thinking, but came up with vastly different results. It would be incorrect to assume that there is one simple answer to such a question. That being said, I also believe that you CAN have a grasp of the same tools and materials that are available to each and everyone of us as musicians. You mentioned technique, which to me is e pluribus unum - of many, one. I like the idea of having an entire menu of resources to choose from. The menu should have all the basic elements available to us as guitarists, so we could choose from what's available to help the creative process along. (See Vol. III) Some people's minds are naturally more creative, and some tend to be more analytical. The difference has a lot to do with their own learning experiences (and of course, brain chemistry, etc.) One is usually easier and more natural than the other for each of us. I suspect that if you are able to "hear" a musical expression in your mind, you must simply train yourself to "find" it on your instrument. That way your only limitations are getting your fingers to respond appropriately. That's just one step from being able to alter what you hear in your mind to suit your own aesthetic. As long as I'm this far out on the limb, I'll take it one branch further. I also believe that a great deal of creative output can be categorized as coming from two distinct personality types: deadliners and goof-offs. First there are the people who simply need to get paid. They are on a deadline and are pushing themselves to produce something which meets the standards they've set for their own abilities and work ethic within a time frame. They are being pushed into creative expression by their own needs. From what I've read, I suspect Mr. Beethoven was in this group. Second, there are people who, for whatever reason, don't take things so seriously and just like to goof around. They have the ability to come up with interesting things as they play, and seem to get "pulled" by musical expression. The people who fall into this group often make remarks like "the song just kinda wrote itself." Perhaps it is just that they are well positioned when the germ of an idea presents itself. Years of sustained effort can be a background for greatness. The key seems to be that they can recognize when they've come up with something good, and retain it for later. Nowadays, being technologically advanced, we have the benefit of a huge variety of options to record our own ideas for later. As far as I know, none of the Beatles ever learned to read or write music (using standard notation), but they knew their way around a recording studio, and their musical skills and creativity were rivaled by few. Now, all that being said, I will also submit that some people are just hard-working, smart, gifted, impassioned, talented, lucky, persistent...
Back To Top

I'm enjoying your Fretboard Logic series and had a few (hopefully) quick questions for you: I'm in Vol. II and am learning the Dorian, Lydian etc. modes. I think I understand the fundamental concepts but when it comes to applying these modes, how do I know where the "target notes" are?
They will be in different places for different forms. This is a particularly tricky area for many readers, so don't feel alone. The guitar's tuning adds an element to this equation that piano and violin players don't have to contend with. Actually, this question applies to any mode. If I'm playing a C major scale, how do I know that C note is on the 6th string, eighth position when using the E scale form? Do I need to memorize the fretboard notes? In Video II, these issues were demonstrated two ways, in part to dispel the notion that the fretboard forms ARE the modes themselves (they aren't): first by showing that you can play the same mode with different forms by targeting the appropriate note, and second by playing different modes using the same form targeting a different note each time. This is an area where your "mode sense" will come into play. My advice is to stick with just one or two modes to begin with. Can you listen to a melody and distinguish whether it is Major or minor? If not, then you need to train yourself to recognize this important difference. An easy comparison is "Old Macdonald" vs. "Pray for the Dead." One is Maj. and one is minor. If you can locate these melodies using, say the G form, 5th position, then Old Mac will be in C Major and Pray will be in A minor. It may help to start with the relevant chord before finding the melody - depends on your level. Next, play "Twinkle Twinkle" using the same form and position. Then play "The Volga Boatmen." Can you tell which is which? Determining the individual notes is the same as learning to name chords from Chapter 2 of book 1. Start with the name of the open string and count up fret by fret using the counting system described in detail: Letter, same letter sharp, next letter, same letter sharp with two exceptions. Exclude B# and E#, meaning go from B to C and from E to F. I realize I'm missing something so go easy on me. I was cruising right along pretty good until about the middle of volume 2 and the it was like a truck hit me. I get the concept of Dorian being second degree, phrygian toward the third and so on... I don't get how to find where on the fretboard that degree is located to actually NAME the Dorian etc, scale. Ok. The term "dorian" pertains to a mode, or tonal orientation - not a scale. It has a different "sound" from major or minor. More like minor, but a little weirder. Dorian is very close to minor and mixolydian is very close to Major, but each are distinct tonal orientations. The Lead Patterns get even tougher. I'm a little confused on what I should actually be "memorizing" when it comes to the different mode's scale forms and lead patterns. The terms you are using suggest that Video II may be helpful to you. Think of it like this: the scale form is a pattern constant. The mode is a tonal constant. Continuing with the above example, if you are using the G scale form and the mode is minor, then the target note will fall under the index finger on the 1st and 6th strings. Moving this combination up a fret doesn't change the form or the mode - just the key (A# min.). Keeping it in the 5th position and changing the target from your index to your pinky finger changes the key and the mode. Now it is C Maj. One more: Vol III page 31, about naming keys. "...then you'll have to count up in fives from C (zero sharps) until you arrive at A. C counted up five = G" Counted up five what?
This goes back to book one. Naming by form and position. You are counting letters of the musical alphabet. You even talk about using your fingers to do the counting. If I count from C up five, I get A. C-D-E-F-G-A. Counting up four I get G. What am I missing? You are missing the term "inclusive." C to A is six inclusive. (C = 1, D = 2, E = 3, F = 4, G = 5, A = 6) I thought of one more. I try to wait as long as I can to build up a few before emailing you. Are the pentatonic scale forms a building block only for the diatonics or will I use them both separately in the future? In other words, did I learn the basic scale forms to make the diatonics easier or do I need to retain them both in memory as I will use them accordingly? I can't think of a style of music that doesn't use pentatonics. Granted, for learning purposes, they were presented as building blocks, but they are also quite clean sounding in actual usage. Their simplicity is also their strength. Think of them as more tools in the box.
Back To Top

How do you measure progress of your students?
By how many records and tickets they sell. Ok, you've raised a good question. As a practical matter, each of us must answer that question for ourselves, but I think one of the best ways is to first set goals of varying difficulty (e.g.., long, medium and short term). Make the goals as concrete as possible, write them down and put an estimated time of completion next to them. This forms a habit of both motivating and marking our own progress. A performer's goal may be to learn a certain piece or to perform that piece at a certain level of accuracy or even to play it for a certain number of people. These are fairly good performance habits and you can make up your own along the same lines to suit your own needs and abilities. A composer could do the same thing along different lines. Individual practice habits are similar but more incremental. Additionally, how is speed properly developed? Personally I practice scales and lead patterns with a metronome but once I pick up 8 more beats I'll be at the limit of my metronome so I'm wondering... then what! The issues surrounding the above - speed, scales, metronomes, etc., are related to technical abilities which are required to produce certain music at a certain level of proficiency. If you are pretty far along in your technical development, as you suggest, you may consider learning some shredder compositions. When I'm feeling ambitious I'll tackle a Malmsteen, Steve Morse or Eric Johnson piece. I like them not because of their technique, but because of the ways they use their considerable abilities. Learned any good pieces lately? Put any good ideas down on paper? In Vol. III an entire chapter was devoted to the subject of Technique. I would only advise that you try to set some limits and establish some objectives. Is it enough to be able to play all the scale and lead patterns in all the positions (and know what key they're in) to be a good lead player? No, and that should have been made apparent in Video I. Are your books and tapes enough material to make a really good guitar player given sufficient practice has been applied? (No offense!) Two "enough" questions in a row. Hmmm. What would you deduce from that? From here it looks like you are asking for minimum requirements in a field inhabited by gifted geniuses and musical carnivores. In Fretboard Logic book one, there is an observation at the top of page xii in the introduction which I'll paraphrase for you here: Nothing I say or do will make you a better player. In fact, nothing anyone says or does will make you a better player. You have to find a way to do that on your own. At best, I hope to clear up confusion and misconceptions about the guitar and music for those seeking a better understanding of things in their efforts to learn. Want to know if you are getting better? Record yourself regularly and listen to your progress over time. There is an underlying question that seems to tie the above questions together, but for some reason I am unable to phrase it. Maybe based on your experience and past questions that have been asked of you, you can figure out what I'm driving at or seeking. The timbre of your questions lead me to suspect that you are at or near "the fork." All of us reach a point where we must decide how big a part in our lives music will be. For some, this decision is more complicated than for others. Many people fail to make the decision at all or constantly change their minds to fit changing circumstances. As a great philosopher once noted, when you come the fork in the road - take it. Some of the happiest and least neurotic musicians are those who keep it as a hobby, but others of us are drawn ever closer by music's beauty, complexity, passion and promise. Personally, I'm in it for the musician jokes.
Back To Top

I was wondering does large hands or longer fingers make a faster guitarist? I have smaller hands and am having trouble playing the style of music I like and I find it's due to my hand size I've been playing as a hobby for 13 years. From the high E 5th fret I can stretch only to the 8th fret comfortably. I read Eddie Van Halen can stretch from 5th-12th. Can I ask your stretch length, and do you know any great guitarist with smaller hands? I've been thinking of pursuing piano instead - maybe that would better suited for my hands. You are talking to someone who also has small hands. Like yourself, at first I considered this to be a deficit and tragically unfair because of strength and reach considerations. One of my instructors had particularly large and strong hands and this only seemed to amplify my victim status. Upon continued observation, I came to the realization that there were actually a few things I could do that he couldn't do as well as vice versa. My smaller hands were able to get into tighter tip clusters that he had to find barred workarounds for, and so on. He couldn't always put his fingertip on just one string - it tended to impinge on adjacent strings. Over the years, I've come to understand that each of our hands are a little similar and a little different. Approaching technical considerations, such as synchronization and velocity, therefore becomes general to us all, and specific to each of us individually. We can look for ways to accommodate our physiques. For example, for my nylon stringed classical, I've altered a steel string guitar because I prefer the neck size and shape. For acoustic guitar I use a string gauge similar to an electric's. Adjustments like these also make the transitions from electric to acoustic to classical less difficult for my hands while still retaining the quality of sound. Interestingly, I've had several occasions to see Mr. Van Halen's hands up close, and his fingers are not so much huge, as my teacher's were, but thick.. I noticed this in a photo shoot once as several of us held different parts of a guitar together for a Kramer ad (Eddie's part was the neck, Floyd's was the tremolo, Seymour had the pickup and mine was the locking nut. I was chemically removed from the picture later. No kidding - I still have a copy!) His fingers seemed to be very strong - like some kind of digital weightlifter. Let me conclude with an observation gained from years of experience: Hands and fingers aren't the thing and piano vs. guitar isn't the thing. Practice is the thing. Remember, if it were easy, everyone could do it.
Back To Top

Do you still teach?
Not at this time, but I plan to in the future. I'm working on something along the lines of Workshop type thing. We're taking names at this point for those interested, but not scheduling anything yet. I am also looking into the possibility of doing some Internet Tutoring.
Back To Top

Why is it that I am learning the 1-3-5 nucleus, but not the key(s)? I have purchased your SE book, and have enjoyed every minute spent in it... up until this moment. I am having trouble getting past page 46. The ideas explained here are frustrating to no end. Why is it that I am learning the 1-3-5 nucleus, but not the key(s)? I understand you are teaching the mechanics... but I can't get my little brain over this page. heh. Ordinarily, we gtr players learn chords by one of two methods: 1. Rote memorization - by placing our fingers at intersections on a graph, and trying to retain them by brute force. 2. The note-by-note method, whereby you learn each note on the fretboard, and then identify each chord, note-by-note, and then given the duplicates the guitar has for most notes, make a guess as to which note to play on which string. (See Introduction Vol. II).
This portion of FL is designed to give players a way to directly BUILD chords of different types, and by doing so, only requiring them to learn one thing, which enables them to do many things. It basically eliminates rote and guesswork. The building process is dependent on knowing four fundamental requisites: 1. The basic forms, and how to name them by position (Vol. I) 2. How to "alter" chord tones (# or b)
3. The "formula" of the chord in question (each chord type's alterations) 4. The location of each chord tone within the different forms (meaning where each degrees is on each string). Ok, at first it sound like a lot, but if you get these things right, you can build almost any chord. FL is a guitar-oriented approach, and not a theory-oriented approach. Again, using the keys and individual note names to derive different types of chords involves much guesswork. The nucleus is a constant within four of the five basic forms. Each form's nucleus reveals precisely where the 1-3-5 tonal degrees are within those fretboard forms, allowing us to easily make the alterations to Major which define the different types of chords. Plus, it automatically gets you halfway there for alterations to the full forms, after you learn how to make alterations such as flatting the 3rd to get a minor chord. So the nucleus helps get the idea of alterations across, and then gives us a shortcut to learning the degree placement for all six strings.Once again, nothing I've written here is not already in Vol. II (and the DVD). So again, I will recommend that you get used to rereading and replaying difficult parts of FL from a place where you were sure you understood the material, until it finally sinks in. Sounds obvious, but it works. One last thing. Issues relating to music theory, technique, style, etc., were reserved for Volume III. For learning purposes, I felt it important to first establish certain fretboard and tonal foundations before delving into more complex and varied subject matter.
Back To Top

First. let me thank you for "Fretboard Logic" I and II. After 56 years, I can finally say I understand guitar improvisation. Wish I had FL in the late 1960's during my rock band days. I have a technical question for you that I can't reconcile. As you suggest in your videos, we were all mis-taught in some way about improvisation. I was told that I could play "any note in a scale" during improvisation, but found that they didn't all sound very good when I did. I began to think that I had to play the root note first for it to sound good. So, I just turned to your Country music section (Video I, not that I have to tell you!), and, it seemed to me that, even unlike rock and blues improvisation, it was even more important for me to play the root note of the chords as the chords change, in your "E-A-D-G" practice progression (where you recommend ascending and descending alternate runs), for it to sound good. A note within the key of E scale, but not the root note, seemed really wrong. I play in the key of E, using your improvisational patterns around this key and chord structure. What am I doing wrong? Did I choose the wrong key? Any guidance you can give me, or refer me to in the video. about the rules that apply to the role of the root note, and avoiding this type of problem, would be appreciated. Again, thanks again for your help and wisdom! Like you, I was taught early on along the lines of "play a certain scale against a certain chord" which I now feel is an oversimplification. I suspect it is taught by those schools of thought that suggest that the more notes you play in a measure, the better a guitarist you are. What is more useful is to think in terms of keys and "key areas" when improvising. Further, when changes approach, you need to be ready to "target" specific notes so that there is tonal coherence to your improv. That is an essential message in Fretboard Logic. The country styled exercise requires you to change targets and key areas every four beats, so it means you need to know your fretboard pretty well to keep up. While the emphasis in Video I was on Applications of the ideas in Volume I, the third study piece also brought out a change of tonality. Major works different from minor in some ways. With Blues minor, you could get away with just about anything in the key area as long as you targeted the 5 chord appropriately. The rock study made you switch keys back and forth from C to A so you couldn't get too comfortable with just one area of the fretboard. Both had minor tonalities, so they worked similarly. With the country solo, the keys are changing every four beats so you'll need to be prepared. The ascending and descending suggestion is just another way to avoid sounding too predictable. So the answer to your question lies in the area of "strong" vs. "weak" targets. In a key, there are stronger and weaker tones (more certain or less certain; more definite, less definite etc.). When you structure the tones in a key chordally, ie., 1-3-5-7-9-11-13 you get farther and farther away from the strong areas which define the key's tonal center. Targeting the "1" is the most definite and strongest choice for a change. Next is the "3" and so on. The "chord tones" or 1-3-5 and 7 are the strongest targets in order. I've heard them also referred to as "color tones." Weaker tones (9, 11 and 13) are often termed "passing tones" as they tend to serve mainly as stepping stones to a chord tone. If you target the 1 or 3 of the target change (or chord), you are in the strongest, safest territory. The 5 and 7 targets are also possibilities, but generally weaker choices. You'll need to experiment in each case to find out the net result of these choices for the style, tonality, personal tastes, etc. Here's an example why: The 7th degree of a diatonic scale has historically been referred to as the "leading tone" which suggests that it "leads" to the tonic or 1. This implies a certain type of thinking which is reflected in what most people think of as "classical" music. Jazz players, on the other hand approach this differently and often think of the 3 and 7 as the most "defining" tones. The 3 and 7 both determine Major vs minor (ie., 3 and 7 vs. b3 and b7) and so they carry the essential "DNA" or "personality" you might say, of the chord. This is strongly implied when you try to mix and match. When you put any b7 with a natural 3, you create a dominant seventh chord and the tensions demand a change to tonic. (See Volume III and Video II) Simarly, when you match a b3 with a natural 7, you get an ambiguous dissonance in what might best be referred to as the "mystery key." So in practical application, style has a lot to do with interpreting these tonal relationships, and the classical, jazz, rock, blues, country, bluegrass, etc., folks don't always agree on what's what, for reasons having less to do with tonal constants than cultural influences. Fretboard Logic attempts to reconcile these issues by discussing various styles without endorsing any particular one over another. The idea in general is to transition from playing scales to playing leads. A scale is a series of related tones, which are useful, but as leads, scales per se are predictable and boring. The FL approach is to add sufficient elements to avoid this and not stray stylistically (at least unintentionally, that is). Put another way: to create interest and define the style.
Back To Top