-
Although the fretboard doesn't have white keys and black keys, I suppose most of us see the fretboard as natural notes and accidental notes. Say the 6th fret on the D string can be G# or Ab depending on the context. But the 5th fret is G, 7th is A (on that same string).
The drawback is, suppose when I'm playing Ab minor arpeggio and I'm gonna hit the 9th fret of the D string (the note B). I find it very difficult to see it as Cb. That fret area looks at me and says "I'm B".
Another example is, say the tune is in Gb major, progression goes to the IV chord. For me it's a lot of afford to think of it as Cb major instead of just B major as I'm playing over the chord and hitting it's chord tones.
Of course same goes for B# and E# in different circumstances.
Music notation is very elegant in a way. For example "A" chords are always, A C E. Each letter can be sharp or flat depending on the quality and the root (A C# E# for augmented, Ab Cb Eb for Ab minor exc). All you need to know is that A C E is the basic formula of many A'ish chords. But do you also find that sometimes it's easier to break that formula in the interest of avoiding unnatural enharmonic spellings?Last edited by Tal_175; 11-07-2019 at 02:49 PM.
-
11-07-2019 01:22 PM
-
Thinking too much can get in the way.
-
Originally Posted by BBGuitar
-
That fret area looks at me and says "I'm B".
-
The lesser used ones are a pain , but this isn't particular to the guitar versus other instruments. I think most players do a bit of enharmonic conversion on the fly, at least for the rarer ones.
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
-
If your motivation for naming the notes is to employ theory structures, in order for theses structures to be consistent and complete you have to be "all in" with the correct naming of the pitches by their correct letter names and accidentals.
I think if you are going to name a pitch as a note (letter name), that letter name (and any accidental applied as needed to match the pitch) needs to correctly represent the pitch's corresponding note letter name of the key, which means using the correct letter name for that scale degree of the key. The fundamental theory is based on using the correct names, so using the note's enharmonic letter names confounds using theory concepts to analyse and construct notes, scales, intervals, and chords.
The basis of diatonic theory is that all seven letter names are employed, and each only once. The key signature allows this to work by individual letter names representing multiple pitches using accidentals, so when you use the enharmonic letter names you are deviating from this system.
Part of that commitment is accepting that individual pitches take multiple letter names dependent on the key.
Personally, I have never thought for a moment about the names of the pitches I have played in my five decades of guitar playing. I play guitar exclusively by ear and there is none of what you describe as That fret area looks at me and says "I'm B", more like That fret area looks at me and sings "I'm what your aural perception of hearing 250Hz sounds like" - which in my mind is the direct phenomenological musical meaning with respect to the key, progression position, chord,interval, scale, or note of the moment.
-
Originally Posted by pauln
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
So, I know the names of the notes in the chords and scales I use. Well, pretty much -- I still drill it.
I don't use E# Fb B# or Cb. Those are F E C and B, in my mind. I have yet to encounter any practical disadvantage to thinking that way.
If they show up in a chart, I can read them.
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
But I do know the names of these things if I want to, so if someone asks for a particular chord or arpeggio, I know what those are and how to play them in various ways; the point being that I do know the canonical theory, I just don't use it when playing the guitar.
I might use theory to discuss something, but never as the process by which I play something. This is often a source of confusion when people assume that since I understand the theory I must be using it to play. If they ask me about something I play, they are often surprised that it may take a few moments for me to assemble an explanation in theory lingo, because they assume the theory lingo representing the thing surely came first in my mind before executing the thing. In fact that never happens when I play, I always lead with my ear, never theory.
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
With me, it depends on the tune. If I see Ab7 then top string, 4th fret, is an Ab. If I see GM7/G#o then it's a G#. All depends.
Mind you, I have to honest. 7th fret is nearly always a B. I can't remember any time I thought it was a Cb. Must prove something.
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
John
-
Originally Posted by John A.
When I'm working on the fretboard, say playing changes through a progression only hitting chord tones as an exercise. Thinking Cb would slow me down. It's faster for me to make an exception on the fretboard and think B for the 3rd of Ab minor. That's of course because 99.9 percent of the time that note is just B in the context (or F would be F not E# for that matter).
Rpjazzguitar said he doesn't bother with the correct spelling in these instances and never encountered a drawback for doing so. That's actually what I'm debating. Whether I should drill seeing these chords on the fretboard with the correct spelling or make exceptions and think the way I'm used to seeing these notes even though at the theoretical level I'm aware of the correct spelling.
-
My simple way of looking at it is eg. in the key of Gb major for instance the enharmonic note names are:
Gb Ab Bb Cb Db Eb F. It would just be confusing to call Cb a B as you would then have a Bb and a B in the scale.
-
Originally Posted by pauln
-
Originally Posted by garybaldy
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
What situation might that be?
The only thing which makes me think about enharmonics is that, in my practice, is the need to have things automatic whatever the root note is in the chord symbol.
So, for example, I consider Gb and F# separately. When I practice things in Gb I will then also practice the same thing in F#. I don't want to see a chord with F# as the root and have to think to myself, oh, that's Gb. Takes too long to think like that. I think it has to be automatic. Either way, there's a B, not a Cb, at least in my way of thinking.
I make the same sort of accommodation for C# and Db, D# and Eb and so on. What use is it to know a bunch of grips for C#m7b5 if the chart says Dbm7b5 and you have to think about it for so long that you can't play it in time?
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
Doesn't mean I sound good or interesting, but I know where I am when playing, and I don't think I developed that ability by consciously mapping note names to spots on the fretboard. I don't fully remember how I got this point TBH (it has been a while ...), but I think I caught on to the inherent logic the guitar's layout pretty early in the game. Strings are this many frets apart. Octaves on consecutive strings that many apart; two strings away, they're that many frets apart, etc. Thirds look/feel like this, sevenths like that, etc. I know the system, so I don't have to know the individual locations of every named pitch, and my brain has mostly managed to map the sounds I want to play that system.
John
-
Originally Posted by John A.
My path has been a little different. I could never learn anything from looking at grids with dots to represent fingerings. But, I learned how to read early, so I knew all the notes, by name, on the fingerboard. That didn't matter if I was playing a blues or a tune for which I had the harmony well assimilated in my ears. I think of the sound of the next note I want to play and my fingers find it -- I don't consciously know the interval (although I can figure out later, slowly, if pressured) and I don't know the note name.
Then I started playing in situations where the tunes were unfamiliar, had harmony I didn't understand, complicated chord symbols and, sometimes, no clear feeling of key I could identify. And, of course, brisk tempos. Too soon, the leader points at me to solo.
In those situations knowing the names of the notes in the chords really helped. With more experience, that turns into something else -- some mixture of note-name, position of the interval on the fretboard (ex: I don't really need to think of the name of the b3 for a minor chord -- I know where it's going to be in relation to the root, as a geometric issue), and sound. Once I've got a couple notes, I can get the rest by ear.
It's all a melange, in a way. That said, at no point can I recall needing to think Cb instead of B. Unless there was a Cb in the chart.
-
I can't think fast enough to actually think of the names of the notes I play. I just know where the sounds are on the fretboard, and the shapes of the chords I may use. I play out of shapes, not theory. The only use I know of for theory and scales is in analyzing what someone played, and why it worked. I don't do a lot of that. I can read standard notation, albeit slowly, not fast enough to sight-read, but I don't recall ever looking at a note on a staff and thinking "that's a Cb". It's a B, an F, or whatever. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and whatever I might call a note, it still sounds the same, if the string is in tune. I don't claim to be a good guitarist, certainly nowhere near professional level, but I can't see how making small distinctions such as are being discussed could help me in any way. But I'm far from being an exemplar, and if calling a note by different names in different contexts works for someone, I certainly wouldn't stand in their way. In short, whatever works for you...
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
John
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
If I'm learning a song I have heard before, I already kind of know how it goes, so I run through it to fill in any gaps. If I am learning an unknown song selected by others, I just need to hear it and then play through it. If it is a particular version of the song (and it needs to be played that way) that is what I'll figure out how to do. In either case, I will actually end up loading it with passing chords, additional changes, and some reharmonization, but most of that is for my own benefit when soloing or comping (I will never use all of those things I load into it, but they are there as suggestions from which may emerge ideas during soloing or comping, or when I just want to increase interest at the moment..., or I may just leave all that stuff out and play it very simple and straight because it is the horn player's "show-off tune" or something like that).
I don't memorize anything, but I try to internalize everything. The difference is that raising, organizing, relating, and connecting internalized ideas is instantaneous and has no perceptible level of effort, which is just how I want to feel when performing.
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
Of course abstractly natural names go first... as you say 'it is B not Cb on the 9th fret of the D string' but once in context it is different... in Ab arp I just know it is Cb...
For me it is a bit more loose maybe... not that fixed.
I just know that playing B arp is the same thing as playing Cb... this is for practice... for speed .. for overcomeing thinking after all.
also I have some mental thing about that...
for example when there is an enharmonic choice prefer flat keys over sharp keys...
I do not know where it comes from.. maybe it is becasue historically flats (minore) where part of natural scales and sharps where always treated as a forced raise of the scale degree, as accidentals, 'musica ficta'
I think it somehow correspondes with it.
But it makes no sense of course when we have 12 tones eaully tempered and some modern modal tune)))
on guitar it does not seem to involve any temeperament issue - they are enharmonic. It is pure psychology... and when the tune is in Gb and I play IV. I think of Cb for sure also because it has a 'different' image for me than 'B major' which is all sharps.
By the way on early flutes which I play for my own pleasure there are different fingerings for B and Cb)))
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
That key has a C flat in the key signature. So do I then write chords like Cbmaj7 or B?
It’s a knotty one because in some ways it can be harder to read, say Bmaj7 Db7 Ebm and see it all as belonging to one mode or scale, which might hinder some readers and improvisers.
OTOH Cbmaj7 is harder to read as an individual chord.
Difficult choices!
Some jazz musicians avoid key signatures all together. For a tune like Zhivago there’s definitely an argument for that (it modulates a lot) but I find I like key signatures most of the time.
KA PAF info please
Today, 11:52 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos