• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Learning notes on fretboard: B#, Cb, E# and Fb?!

No, I haven't-most sane composers never write in "C#"- they write it in Db. C# Minor? Of course, that isn't a big deal. But C#? Dude, write it in Db. I arrange and write a lot of sheet music, and I would never write in C# major. Ick. :)

I wonder if this happens because somebody transposes it for the singer(s) using computer notation software, but the person that does it does not know it is hard to read?
 
According to the old jazz players: "You're never more than half a step away from the right note." ;)

Given your interest in reading, I suggest simply doing a lot more of it. There are piles of fully notated cello and double bass exercises, and I believe the books by Ed Fuqua and Ed Friedland would also be useful, for reading study.

There are two parallel goals: First is just recognition of the notes and where they are located on your bass. Second is choosing specific fingerings that are economical of shifting, and of plucking, and avoid awkward reaches. My son's cello teacher told him that if you have to choose between a fingering that is convenient for the left hand or for the right hand, choose the right hand. This probably applies to plucked instruments too.

Once you've been through a book, start at the beginning and see if it has gotten easier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phaidrus
I'm struggling to learn - REALLY LEARN - the notes on the fretboard, but B#, Cb, E# and Fb are driving me NUTS.

Yes, I know the following are the same pitch:
  • B# and C
  • B and Cb
  • E# and F
  • E and Fb
I know that pianos and fretted instruments are "equally tempered", and can never be perfectly in-tune in all keys.

I know that the reason for notes like E# and Cb has something to do with how music is notated in western music.

Still, this has always been a huge barrier for me in really KNOWING the notes on the fretboard.

Question: Does anyone have a diagram like this, that additionally accounts for the notes I mentioned above? [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

As an alternative, any suggestions to help with my getting smacked too many times with the "stupid stick"?


The problem is at some point you start to use enharmonics so your fretboard map changes. IMHO, when you get to the point, you need to be thinking in terms of a key centers, intervals, and chord shapes instead of purely about fretboard note locations and enharmonics. Basically you know what key you are in and you know your handshape (box pattern) and intervals to produce the notes. My point is learn the information from multiple different perspectives to improve memory and recall. When you are in the heat of battle you will eventually use the most efficient thought process without thinking about it too much. Either that, or one mental process will fail and you can quickly draw on different mental process that works.

Thinking in terms of enharmonic is not efficient, because you first have to think of the note location on the fingerboard, and then you have to convert it to the enharmonic. Actually you probably do the conversion backwards and think of the note location you need to play and then confirm it using the enharmonic conversion, which is even more inefficient. If you are thinking in terms of a key signature, interval, or box pattern, you eventually get to a point where you think of the note first and don't have to do any sort of conversion.


Circle-of-fifths.png

The circle of 5ths contains 15 major and 15 minor keys, but you can keep going around the circle in both directions infinitely and create additional theoretical keys. For example G# Major or Fb Major would be next, with six accidentals and one doubled accidental each.

Normally music is written to avoid using harmonization in a theoretical key that is beyond these 15. In fact it's very rare to see keys with even seven accidentals. Instead typically you see the enharmonic key with only five accidentals. However some harmonic and melodic minors generate double sharps, and you also have to deal with borrowed chords etc, which can get messy at times. Sometimes chords are written enharmonically, which makes it easier to play, but harder to analyze.

If you really want to be proficient, you have to work on these concepts until it becomes automatic. Then you will likely need a maintenance routine where you practice the concepts intermittently to keep them fresh. My impression is that many high level professionals do not do this. Few people really need to be able to sight read in A# minor. So perhaps the goal is to be competent enough to play in A# minor with a bit of prep. AFAIK there are no well known works in A# minor. Of course it's up to you to decide what you level of proficiency you want to maintain. But there is only so much time that you can dedicate to these concepts, so consider the opportunity costs.

Most people really don't ever get to this level. I am a retired pro who toured for over 25 years, and I would not say that I am totally solid at this level. However at a few times in my career I was very comfortable with Gb Major, which is a bit odd for a string player. If you don't know strings tend to play in sharp keys more often, and horns tend to play in flat keys more often. Since my job involved playing upright in concert band, I become more comfortable playing in flat keys, and there were times in my career where I played several compositions in Gb over a short time frame, and became very proficient in this key.
 
Do you perhaps know where the names of the modes/scales come from, why, and since when? They're all greek names, obviously, but why these specific ones? Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian, Locrian.

There's conflicting info on this. Most sources agree that the names as we know them, except "Locrian" (seventh mode), were assigned to the modes by the 16th-Century theorist Heinrich Glarean, aka Henrichus Glareanus. In his 1547 work Dodecachordus, he analyses the eight Gregorian modes ("authentic" and "plagal"/"Hypo" variants of Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian and Mixolydian), and proposes two new ones, Ionian and Aeolian.

For most of their existence beginning in the Eighth Century AD as the "octoecho" system, these modes were merely numbered (and there was some disagreement over the numbering system between Catholicism and Orthodoxy). Glarean is the first Western (Romance/Germanic) scholar to use these names in music theory, and his names are the ones we still use.

However there is ample evidence that he got them from Ancient Greek music theory dating to the 7th Century BC. Theorists including Pythagoras, Aristoxenos and Ptolemy were among the first to structure pitch and harmony, including the concept of the octave (that the sequence of tones should repeat with every doubling of frequency; "octave" was in turn coined based on its containing two "tetrachords", still a basic tenet of modern music theory).

Among other things, these theories discussed the existence of different "octave species", which could be described in terms of the sequence of notes beginning at the note of a particular name, and these names are pretty familiar; Dorian, Phrgian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Hypodorian, Hypolydian and Hypophrygian. Ionian and Aeolian were used in Greek music theory, but not to describe the modes we currently use them for. In fact, very little of this translates exactly over the nearly two millenia between Aristoxenos's work and Glareans, even though the Greek systems form the basis for the sonic characters Glarean would describe.

This knowledge was lost in the Middle Ages and rediscovered in the Renaissance. Glarean thus certainly knew of the Ancient Greek modes, and assigned the names in a "best-fit" manner to the hexachordal scales he was describing, thus re-standardizing the modes with names that could cross the Schism, where the numeric system of identifying them had been jumbled over the centuries. Again, the underlying theory of the Greeks doesn't translate exactly, however Glarean would have been able to overlay the terms as used for Greek diatonic octave species over the then-state-of-the-art of Western music theory, and fill in a few blanks.

The concept of these modes has since been simplified, in part by the acceptance of the twelve-tone scale which among other things does away with the semantics of whether B can be flat in Guido's hexachordal system. This largely renders the "plagal" variants of the Gregorian modes redundant; if B's always sounded in its "natural" form, then Hypolydian mode is identical to Ionian, Hypomixolydian to Dorian and Hypodorian to Aeolian. Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian and Mixolydian survive, and the last, Hypophrygian (equivalent to Glarean's Hypoaeolian once flatting semantics are ignored), was renamed Locrian sometime in the late 1700s, borrowing from yet another region of Greece and becoming generally accepted as the name of the mode of the seventh diatonic scale degree in the 19th Century.
 
Bass is not laid out like piano, and this makes some aspects of theory nearly incomprehensible - and some amazingly intuitive.

Interval relationships are a breeze. This was a huge power up for me my first time through music school - I’d just imagine “what does this interval feel like?” and the sound would pop into my ear. The neck of the bass is laid out like graph paper and “one string over and one fret back” will always be a major third, “three frets up” will always be a minor third, “one string over and two frets up” or (“small letter L”) was a perfect fifth and “two strings over and two frets up” was an octave. It really doesn’t get easier than that - instant and consistent kinesthetic relationship to intervals.

On the downside, the letter names are initially very confusing on the bass: “wait, the four strings are E, A, D and G - why is the next named note on the E string (F) one fret up but the next named note up on the A, D and G strings (B, E and A respectively) two frets up? Where is the logic???“

Because I had come at this all from a bass and guitar framing, none of that made any sense - it all seemed as arbitrary as if they had named them “rutabaga, armadillo, pillowcase, orbit” etc.

So the eventual solution, of course, was to start exploring the piano keyboard for the first time and suddenly - click. A few days of messing around with scales and suddenly the organizing logic, which simply doesn’t exist on fretted instruments in the same way, started falling into place.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Phaidrus
There's conflicting info on this. Most sources agree that the names as we know them, except "Locrian" (seventh mode), were assigned to the modes by the 16th-Century theorist Heinrich Glarean, aka Henrichus Glareanus. In his 1547 work Dodecachordus, he analyses the eight Gregorian modes ("authentic" and "plagal"/"Hypo" variants of Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian and Mixolydian), and proposes two new ones, Ionian and Aeolian.

For most of their existence beginning in the Eighth Century AD as the "octoecho" system, these modes were merely numbered (and there was some disagreement over the numbering system between Catholicism and Orthodoxy). Glarean is the first Western (Romance/Germanic) scholar to use these names in music theory, and his names are the ones we still use.

However there is ample evidence that he got them from Ancient Greek music theory dating to the 7th Century BC. Theorists including Pythagoras, Aristoxenos and Ptolemy were among the first to structure pitch and harmony, including the concept of the octave (that the sequence of tones should repeat with every doubling of frequency; "octave" was in turn coined based on its containing two "tetrachords", still a basic tenet of modern music theory).

Among other things, these theories discussed the existence of different "octave species", which could be described in terms of the sequence of notes beginning at the note of a particular name, and these names are pretty familiar; Dorian, Phrgian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Hypodorian, Hypolydian and Hypophrygian. Ionian and Aeolian were used in Greek music theory, but not to describe the modes we currently use them for. In fact, very little of this translates exactly over the nearly two millenia between Aristoxenos's work and Glareans, even though the Greek systems form the basis for the sonic characters Glarean would describe.

This knowledge was lost in the Middle Ages and rediscovered in the Renaissance. Glarean thus certainly knew of the Ancient Greek modes, and assigned the names in a "best-fit" manner to the hexachordal scales he was describing, thus re-standardizing the modes with names that could cross the Schism, where the numeric system of identifying them had been jumbled over the centuries. Again, the underlying theory of the Greeks doesn't translate exactly, however Glarean would have been able to overlay the terms as used for Greek diatonic octave species over the then-state-of-the-art of Western music theory, and fill in a few blanks.

The concept of these modes has since been simplified, in part by the acceptance of the twelve-tone scale which among other things does away with the semantics of whether B can be flat in Guido's hexachordal system. This largely renders the "plagal" variants of the Gregorian modes redundant; if B's always sounded in its "natural" form, then Hypolydian mode is identical to Ionian, Hypomixolydian to Dorian and Hypodorian to Aeolian. Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian and Mixolydian survive, and the last, Hypophrygian (equivalent to Glarean's Hypoaeolian once flatting semantics are ignored), was renamed Locrian sometime in the late 1700s, borrowing from yet another region of Greece and becoming generally accepted as the name of the mode of the seventh diatonic scale degree in the 19th Century.

Thank you very much, I do appreciate your contribution! Are you by any chance a music historian? Could you perhaps recommend further reading on the subject? I'm an art historian by profession (have studied art history and philosophy/political theory) and always interested in the historical aspect of things. Music is my hobby (along with cycling) but I take it seriously and work on it as much as possible. Gives me a mental balance in life.
 
Last edited:
Plato discusses the modes in The Republic, in particular which modes should be permitted by the government. And he says that chromatic instruments should be banned altogether.

Really, I don't remember that. It's been a while since I read The Republic and wasn't into music theory at the time. Do you perhaps remember in which book?

Well, Plato isn't particularly fond of artist as they, seen from his political perspective, provide a misleading imitation of an imitation (or a simulacrum of a simulacrum), namely something twice distanced from the Idea of a thing, in the following order: Idea (in the world of Ideas) - mere phenomenon referring to an Idea (in our ephemeral world) - work of art imitating a mere phenomenon (the product(s) of art/artists in our ephemeral world). He would even have Homer banned from the ideal State!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Avigdor
Really, I don't remember that. It's been a while since I read The Republic and wasn't into music theory at the time. Do you perhaps remember in which book?

Well, Plato isn't particularly fond of artist as they, seen from his political perspective, provide a misleading imitation of an imitation (or a simulacrum of a simulacrum), namely something twice distanced from the Idea of a thing, in the following order: Idea (in the world of Ideas) - mere phenomenon referring to an Idea (in our ephemeral world) - work of art imitating a mere phenomenon (the product(s) of art/artists in our ephemeral world). He would even have Homer banned from the ideal State!
This is a decent excerpt:

Music in Plato’s Republic
 
If you haven't seen Victor Wooten talk about some of this theory stuff, you should do a deep dive, he's got a great way of explaining stuff that is 1) more correct than what they teach you in music school, and 2) understandable to people who didn't go to music school. When you're talking sharps and flats, this is the critical response:

Thank you! I remember this from high school music (50 odd years ago). I'd forgotten it all. Thnaks again.
 
The chord tones for the common progression iim7 - V7alt - IMaj7 are:
iim7: 1 b3 5 b7
V7alt = V7(b5 #5 b9 #9): 1 3 b5 #5 b7 b9 #9
IMaj7: 1 3 5 7

The key most remote to C major is Gb or its enharmonic F#, respectively with 6 flats or 6 sharps.

In Gb Major, this progression is Abm7 - Db7alt - GbMaj7, with chord tones:
Abm7: Ab (1), Cb (b3), Eb (5), Gb (b7) (enharmonic to Ab, B, Eb, Gb)
Db7alt: Db (1), F (3), Abb (b5), A (#5), Cb (b7), Ebb (b9), E (#9) (enharmonic to Db, F, G, A, B, D, E)
GbMaj7: Gb (1), Bb (3), Db (5), F (7)

If you prefer F# major, the same progression is G#m7 - C#7alt - F#Maj7 with chord tones:
G#m7: G# (1), B (b3), D# (5), F# (b7)
C#7alt: C# (1), E# (3), G (b5), G## (#5), B (b7), D (b9), D## (#9) (enharmonic to C#, F, G, A, B, D, E)
F#Maj7: F# (1), A# (3), C# (5), E# (7) (enharmonic to F#, A#, C#, F)

So notes such as Cb, E#, Abb, Ebb, G##, D## are a real thing, showing up in very common harmonic progressions.
 
I think most of you are making it much too complicated for the OP. First he has the learn the basics and the keys with up to four or five sharps and flats before he has to worry about anything else. The rest just distracts him from the essence.

Agree. In the examples I used the signatures were 4# (E Major/C# minor) and 5# (B Major/G# minor). IME it is normal when learning a major key to look at the relative minor at or around the same time. YMMV
 
Last edited:
I think most of you are making it much too complicated for the OP. First he has the learn the basics and the keys with up to four or five sharps and flats before he has to worry about anything else. The rest just distracts him from the essence.

Actually, I'm enjoying the conversation since I am very theoretical. I've had a fair amount of musical training for a non-pro.

Still, I have a LONG way to go in really KNOWING where the notes are on the fretboard. I played as a teenager (garage-band blues) just by ear and jammed via scales. Self-taught to read bass in mid-20s for church group, on first 5 frets, then snaking-up G string. In late 40s, early 50s, played with another church group, using "Nashville Numbers" on the chord charts. Think LONG gaps in my amateur bass-playing lineage.

Now, early 60s, I'm trying to fill-in many gaps in my playing. In addition to learning the fretboard and staff better, I'm also trying to get down a few slap-grooves, which as a pick-playing flats guy in the past requires learning a lot about muting. I miss my palm-mute...

All the thoughts in this thread are much appreciated. I realized I was asking sort-of a "bottomless question", but to my surprise (and with some time in the shed), the responses are really helping.

Anyway, the "tone" of TalkBass culture is second to none! Most forums can get out-of-hand, but TalkBass "stays in the pocket". It is clear the folks here consider bass a "labor of love".
 
I know that the reason for notes like E# and Cb has something to do with how music is notated in western music.

The rules about When you use one or vs other are fairly simple, and depend entirely on 2 possible contexts:
  1. the key : use the letters in order ABCDEFG, add accidentals as needed to stay in key. Don't repeat a letter with a different accidental. No E and E# in the same key, for example. If E is already used in the key, That next fret is F.
  2. the chord : order the letters in the cycle of 3rds: ACEGBDF(ACEG...) These will most often be the same letters and accidentals as the key sig. If the chord is Ab minor, the minor third is called Cb, not B (a second). this is just spelling chords: they may be voiced in many ways.
one thing that makes notation so useful is that the lines/spaces are the cycle of 3rds.
It's worth committing the sequence ACEGBDF,ACEGBDF,... to memory


I'm actually working on a diagram for everything on the first 12 frets.

I recommend charting individual scales/keys/arpeggios rather than a vomit of all possible notes.
consider studying words and sentences instead of the whole alphabet
that way your understanding of "every note on the neck" comes with context

Still, I have a LONG way to go in really KNOWING where the notes are on the fretboard.

There are many approaches but the one I found is best is pacman's sure fire scale practice method
Again, because this teaches "all the notes" AND the context of each key
 
If you do the Joe Hubbard random note finder 10 minutes a day for a few weeks or so, you'll have the fretboard down in no time.

For now, I'm using an app called BassAtSight to learn the notes on the first 5 or so frets. My main block is having trouble "seeing" all the notes on all 5 strings in maybe a 5-fret range. Of course, I want to get the whole neck, but first, I want to have the sort of "mental model" someone learning to read on the first 5 frets gets.

When I actually have "bass in hand", I'm trying to focus on introductory slap, and working on my muting when finger-plucking. Also, I want to get working on my Hal Leonard book for introductory reading. Trying to make best use of time: my "day job" is paper-pushing.
 
Last edited: