The video I have a question about is from Music Theory 1--Music Theory for Guitar 1E that goes over the 7 Position System and maps it onto the four neck diagrams.

I mapped out the scales along with Pebber in the video and compared them to the 7 position system pdf found under guitar lesson pdf files. He gives more than seven positions in the video but leaves out position 1 from the pdf. A few of the "extra" positions he gives only have 2 notes per string, so how are these included in the 3 nps category? I am trying to map out all the keys, and I would like to know which shapes I should reference and from where. I understand Pebber says "there is no right or wrong, only more," but I feel like the material from the same lesson should be consistent. Thank you.

Quote: flushandswirl wrote in post #1

---

The video I have a question about is from Music Theory 1--Music Theory for Guitar 1E that goes over the 7 Position System and maps it onto the four neck diagrams.

I mapped out the scales along with Pebber in the video and compared them to the 7 position system pdf found under guitar lesson pdf files. He gives more than seven positions in the video but leaves out position 1 from the pdf. A few of the "extra" positions he gives only have 2 notes per string, so how are these included in the 3 nps category? I am trying to map out all the keys, and I would like to know which shapes I should reference and from where. I understand Pebber says "there is no right or wrong, only more," but I feel like the material from the same lesson should be consistent. Thank you.

---

Thank you for your reply, but I should clarify to say this question is for people who have a pay subscription to the lessons, and who watch the video lessons. I have already stated in my question that I know about the 7 Pos pdf. My question is on the inconsistency of the pdf to the video. I will just ask Pebber directly.

Hey dude, Pebber sent me that lesson series a while back. I noticed no inconsistencies, but then again I watched them after already having memorized what he calls the 14 position system, AND being aware of the logic he used when developing his 35 position scale tone form system.

He has a 5 position, 7 position, 12 position, 14 position and a 35 position scale tone form system. These systems all have common threads with various systems found elsewhere on the net. He says this quite often in many videos, and even shares where and when he learned the ones that he learned or extrapolated from others.

Anyway, for a particular scale (major, mel. min, harm. min., etc.) all of these systems are just the various ways one could learn the SINGLE STATIC set of all of the notes that fall into that particular scale. I mean take the 7 tones of the major scale, complete a fretboard diagram and you're done. But ask a student to memorize all that at once and they will fail. So, teachers chop them up into pieces using some set of logic and voila, they have a system.

Pebber's logic is quite nice once you understand it in that it's VERY easy to apply it on the fly if you ever forget a positional pattern. Just investigate the scale tone form system a bit by downloading some PDFs and watching a few videos. That's where you'll understand the logic behind the 32, 33, 43, 34, and 44 mappings. Then you're realize the 32 & 33 mappings comprise the 14 position system. The 33 mapping may or may not exactly match the 7 position system; I wouldn't know since I was at the 14 position system when I started with Pebber.

But inconsistent? I'm not buying that. Maybe you're right, but maybe you just don't quite fully understand what you're watching yet. No offense intended though, perhaps you are right.

Quote: flushandswirl wrote in post #3

---

Thank you for your reply, but I should clarify to say this question is for people who have a pay subscription to the lessons, and who watch the video lessons. I have already stated in my question that I know about the 7 Pos pdf. My question is on the inconsistency of the pdf to the video. I will just ask Pebber directly.

---

Ok, home from work now. My version of the file named "MusicTheory_for_GUITAR_vol.1E.mp4" is 755,221 KB and 1:01:15 in length. This will tell you if we're watching the same thing. In this video, he's teaching how one constructs the major scale using C-major as an example, and then diagrams 3 different position systems (and arpeggios). Listen to the commentary throughout too, that will help you gauge what you should start learning and also what you should try to progress to as soon as possible (14 position system, and then scale tone form system), with the ultimate goal being not actually needing position systems anymore.

At about the 20 minute mark, he starts going through the CAGED system which is a 5 position system. This is a starting point, but SUPER basic and not really practical for long.

At about the 33 minute mark, he goes to the three notes per string (3nps) system, which is 7 position system. When leading into this, he completes a full neck diagram and then he rewrites the (32) first CAGED position in column 2. Then the 3nps patterns start in column 3; which in C-major is the one that starts from scale tone 3 (open string, low E). Then he writes scale tone 4, and on a new sheet 5, 6, 7 and 1. Finally on a new sheet he starts from scale tone 2 and completes the 7 different 3nps positions. Yeah, when he's done he adds the octave of scale tone 3 for good measure, purposely using the (32) form again instead of the 3nps form. He does this to make a point, and in my opinion speaks to it quite directly. Relisten to what he says at about the 37-38 minute mark. It's remarkably similar to what I wrote above about the full neck being the one true correct "position" along with a little rib that some people gripe "dude, that's not the 7 position system!"

Now starting at minute 40, he explains the 14 position system with a comment that the student should get here as soon as possible.

Look, the main idea is to learn the full neck however you can. Learn how to explain it. Learn how to write it down yourself in any key. Or any scale, or any chord tones, etc. Learn how to chop the neck into pieces that your brain can memorize. Learn how to program muscle memory so that you can fluidly play within the key everywhere on the neck. And once you've got that you can forget all these "systems." Maybe you get there one day, maybe you don't. I personally am still trying to get there...

Anyway, hopefully this helps you sort things out. Everything I saw looks very consistent, methodical and logical to me.

Yes this is the video. I watched it again and I see how he added extra positions while explaining the 7POS system. However, if you compare the video to the pdf, they do not match. I emailed him with the concern and he agreed that there are inconsistencies between the video and the pdf that are caused by him having an older version of the pdf file uploaded.

So again, if anybody is also noticing this while learning Music Theory 1E from 31:00-40:00 found at pbguitarstudio.com > lesson videos > Music Theory for Guitar Vol 1E, you are NOT misunderstanding the video. The video file and the pdf file explaining the 7POS system just do not match 100% as confirmed by Pebber Brown as of May 6, 2014, so do not use them in tandem if you are doing the assigned homework of mapping out the CAGED, 7POS, and 14POS in every key on the four neck diagrams. Instead, use the video diagrams.

So, the VIDEO is correct as both myself and dlraben assumed it was. But the pdf has not been updated.

Thanks for the clarification flushandswirl

This is just to quickly add that nowhere in the video was the viewer instructed to use any 5, 7, 12, 14 or 35 position system PDFs. The whole point of that video was to start from blank diagrams to learn how to reproduce the full and partial neck mappings using the major scale formula. If you take short cuts and use diagrams you didn't create yourself, then you really are hindering your progress. Believing that or not is up to you.

Yes, but why would PB give me access to documents and not want me to use them? Why do you assume I am doing the assignment without following directions?

He even states on his website that independent guitar lessons are to be treated as rigorously as one would if they were enrolled in the college itself. In college, the professor would present the student with lecture and a textbook to supplement lecture. In this case, the lectures are the videos, and the text are the PDF files he makes available. Sometimes, the professor assigns from the text, other times, he/she expects you to independently read the text to supplement lecture without being told to do so. With this in mind, PB never said to use the PDF and video in conjunction because it would be already assumed by the student to utilize all text and media material in conjunction, that all class material presented would be used for the same goal went without saying. I've never had a professor give us a textbook and not expect us to read it, and if they do, they would explicitly state it. Otherwise, it is up to a student's motivation to review all relevant material because the professor gives it as a benefit. Sure, you can choose to not use it, but if you are paying for this class, why not take full advantage?

I compared lecture to text and found a discrepancy, and asked why. I could not finish the assigned homework without having the question answered. I was in no way attacking PB or any poster by asking the question; I was not "taking shortcuts" to my learning either as one user suggested between the lines in the post before this. I figured if I found it, others who have already taken the course must have also. I was under the impression that this forum was to be used as a supplement to the class, much like the Blackboard format a lot of colleges use where the professor provides an online space to e.g. hold discussion outside of the classroom. If it is not, I am mistaken and I am sorry for posting this question and I am sorry also because the way in which answering my question was handled regardless of whether or not that is what this board is to be used for.

As a paying subscriber, I feel like its in my best interest to say something about the way in which this particular discussion was mishandled because this is part of what I am paying for with my lessons and I am interested in using this forum as a benefit. I am writing this as constructive criticism to make this community forum a more friendly environment for future course questions, at no fault or criticism to PB, whom I respect greatly. I am hoping this facilitates a constructive resolution to what I see as a harassment problem that needs to be addressed for the betterment of this community, moderators, and posters. All posters, guests, and moderators have an obligation to treat this forum like a community and we are each responsible for facilitating an educational environment for each other. To the best of my knowledge the only person who has a financially vested interest in this forum is Pebber Brown, all other moderators and users not being financially motivated to maintain this forum as an educational environment by anything except their pursuit of knowledge and character. Because nobody besides Pebber Brown has this interest, it is up to all users to take an interest in supporting and growing this community for the sake of education with the benefit of not being bound by financial gain. This only works when the community of users all understand this obligation and personally work to maintain this high standard. This community is kept exclusive to paid users and otherwise for this reason. I apologize if anybody feels attacked, as this is not my intention to disrespect anybody. The rules of the forum state to bring all abuses to a moderator's or administrator's attention. I think as a community we can learn to resolve our differences in a friendly manner without the intervention of an administrator, although I realize at least one poster is a moderator. However, I am unsure at this point if it can be achieved although I'd like to hope so. Let me explain further.

After asking the question, I was told by the first poster that even though he did not know the video I was talking about, I must be wrong in my assumption for anecdotal reasons; I felt attacked for asking a question and continued to be made to feel like I was somehow wrong in asking the question or mistaken. Again, this was anecdotal, meaning the poster did not know what material I was questioning, but assumed without examining evidence that I was wrong. The second poster even suggested between the lines that I am taking shortcuts by using the pdf document because it was never assigned with the video. All of this falls under the category of harassing language, although he/she otherwise made an honest attempt at answering my question, it seems the overall way the question was answered was aggressive and made to make me feel stupid in asking. As stated before, professors present students with both lecture and text to be used in conjunction throughout the course, and the lecture is presented in the form of video, the text being in PDF form. I understand I will most likely be further attacked by moderators/users for even posting my concern, even though harassing attacks are forbidden on this forum. Instead of being teachers and facilitators of intelligent discussion, you two users have decided to be hostile to my question and this is my way of speaking out against this really weird, aggressive, and unprofessional reaction to a course question. This is probably because nobody but PB is financially obligated to maintain an educational environment for its paying users, which is why it is important to bring up this issue so we can all learn to use each other's talents and knowledge for the greater benefit.

I am really disappointed that this forum is not what I would expect from people interested in pursuing a higher education. I would have expected less ad hominem attacks and more constructive discussion from educated students who are taking the same class, have taken the class, or are taking similar higher level PB classes. Anecdotal accusations that a poster is mistaken about what he/she has observed after she watched the media and text given by her teacher should not be taken lightly. Please be considerate of what you are posting, how it comes across, and if it facilitates a constructive answer to a posed question. If we all do, this community will continue to grow and become a learning environment to rival an expensive college education and for this reason, we should all have a vested interest in upholding this idea. Thank you for reading this.

It was my lengthy way of asking you two (more so the moderator), why such aggression towards the question and why would you automatically assume that I do not know what I am talking about without even looking at the evidence?

flushandswirl

You started this thread. Your tone was very accusatory towards the lesson material. dlraben and myself were only trying to defend what we knew was a misunderstanding. The VIDEOS, as I stated, are gone over in a very thorough manner. That pdf is from like 1992.

You were accusing Pebber of not having consistent material. That's exactly what you questioned. Myself and dlraben were simply trying to DEFEND Pebber and explain to you that the VIDEO was correct.

Pebber will update the pdf when he gets a chance. I spoke with him about it this morning.

For you to accuse ME, the mod, as ATTACKING you?????!!!????? You need thicker skin. You'll never make it. I was simply defending the video and Pebber after you quickly jumped to PUBLICALLY ON HIS FORUM criticize him without simply emailing him or me and asking if the pdf had been updated.

In the future, if anyone has a question about source materials, DO NOT jump on this forum and criticize and accuse. Simply email me or Pebber and we will look into it.

Thank you

For me the initial aggressive statement in this thread was

Zitat

---

but I feel like the material from the same lesson should be consistent.

---

From your last post, it's clear that was not your intention. If intentions deserve merit, then please accept that my intention was not to offend either, but rather to attempt to clear up confusion. If you spend time to read my contributions to this forum, if you haven't already done so, it should be abundantly clear that my interests are definitely in line with what you suggest forum contributors should strive for, i.e. higher learning.

Further, I think that the nature of web forums is unfortunately 99% fools/trolls and 1% legit contributors. That's just the modern day internet for better or worse. So, when a new poster (as measured by a post count of 1) opens a thread with no introductions and welcomes themselves to the forums with an implication of an error, I actually don't think it's that unreasonable to be a little suspicious. That you got responses at all, in my opinion, was actually a bit lucky. In the end, it seems that you may have been luckier to not receive any.

In any event, my apologies for your initial experience. If you like, I will agree to steer clear of your experience on these forums so as to not harass you.