Back to index of guitar pages by Donald Sauter.
This web page detailing my proposal for a guitar fingering notation system has been around forever, but in December 2004 I added a massive chunk in response to Jan de Kloe's article "A House Style for Engraving Guitar Music" in Soundboard magazine (XXX/2, 2004). This new section does not repeat all the details of my system discussed in the earlier sections, but it is self-contained. It also has something the earlier sections do not: images of guitar music samples fingered according to various systems and refingered in mine. I have statistics showing this page has been getting tons of visits lately - far more than in all the previous years combined. I have only gotten a handful of comments - mostly nasty - regarding my proposal. Is that representative? Are all of you visiting just for the fun of bursting your blood vessels? It's nothing more than familiar fingering notation distilled down to the essentials - why all the resentment? I'd appreciate your feedback. Jump right to the new section responding to Jan's article by clicking on this sentence.
All of these links are internal, so you may scroll away.
Forward
I want to share with the guitar world my system for notating fingerings. It was arrived at by conscious trial and error over decades of reading guitar music. It uses only familiar elements found in thousands of guitar publications, albeit in a very well-defined way, and so could hardly be considered radical.
In spite of that, my system always provokes ferocious opposition whenever and wherever it's presented. Because of that, I am inclined to take the reverse psychology route here.
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD YOU EVER USE ANY ASPECT OF THIS FINGERING NOTATION PROPOSAL ON YOUR OWN GUITAR MUSIC. GOT IT, PAL?
With that understood, let's go.
Introduction
The claim is that this system for notating guitar fingerings is clear, easy to read, and free of ambiguities. It requires only symbols which are already widely used and eliminates several other common symbols as excess baggage.
In case you don't have time to slog through the whole page, here are the most important features of the system: Every note is fingered, except for repeated notes and chords; the finger number is printed right in front of the note; finger numbers for a chord are printed in a perfectly straight, vertical line; position changes are always indicated by a guide finger dash or an explicit position indication; string numbers and barre notation are never used.
This proposal has absolutely nothing to do with the actual determination of fingerings for a piece of guitar music. Strangely, though, I have found that after re-notating fingerings according to this system, alternative solutions can be more easily seen and tried out.
Next, a sensible, easy-to-read, standardized system of notating harmonics is proposed.
Finally, various standardizations relating to other aspects of notation are proposed. There is a suggestion for notating preparatory barres - probably the next most important issue after individual notes and harmonics are taken care of.
Definitions
NORMAL NOTE - a note which is not played as a harmonic.
NOTE-STACK - all of the notes which are notated at the same rhythmic point in a measure. A stack may consist of 1, 2, 3 or any number of notes. This name was made up to avoid the word "chord" and its implications.
I used to call this a note-group, and in fact have seen another writer use that term in the same way. I've discarded it as too ambiguous since "note group" could just as easily refer to a sequence of melody notes. "Stack" is the best I could do - sorry about the grungy smokestack image.
GUIDE FINGER - a left-hand finger that plays notes on the same string in 2 consecutive note-stacks.
This is a slightly more general definition of the term than has been in use, where "guide finger" implies the finger tip is actually slid along the string. The definition here allows for a case such as finger 1 moving from a 6-string barre at fret 5 to a single note at fret 1 played on the tip. If this re-definition is objectionable, mentally substitute "notational guide finger" wherever you see "guide finger" in this page.
A guide finger may also connect non-consecutive note-stacks if "not much" has happened in between; specifically if neither the finger nor string was used in the interim.
Nothing is implied about the musical connection of the 2 notes played with the guide finger.
Basic philosophy for normal notes
To play a normal note, a guitarist familiar with the fingerboard thinks of 2 things:
1. the position of the left hand along the fingerboard, in other words, which fret is commanded by finger 1.
2. which finger of the left hand plays the note.
The system proposed here clearly and efficiently conveys this information to the player throughout the piece of music. For that reason, it might be called a "finger/position" system as opposed to most systems out there which are more or less haphazard concoctions of "finger/string/barre".
The rules for normal notes
1. If a note-stack is different from the note-stack directly preceding it, it is fingered.
2. If a note-stack is identical to the previous note-stack, it is not fingered.
3. In a fingered note-stack, all notes of that note-stack which are played are fingered. (Tied over notes are not fingered.)
4. The fingerings for a note-stack are printed in a perfectly vertical, straight line.
5. A fingering for a given note will appear, as nearly as possible, directly in front of that note (and its accidental sign, if there is one.)
When this is not possible, specifically, when unisons or seconds appear in the note-stack, the fingerings are adjusted up and down by the smallest possible amount. The perfectly vertical, straight line of fingerings is maintained.
6. All guide fingers are indicated by a short dash in front of the finger number supplied with the destination note. The dash is slanted down (\) if the motion is towards the 1st position. The dash is slanted up (/) if the motion is away from the 1st position.
7. If the left hand changes position along the fingerboard when one or more guide fingers are involved, no other position change indication is supplied.
In the case of a glissando, indicated by a straight line between the two notes, the guide finger dash is redundant and, therefore, not used.
8. If the left hand changes position with no guide finger involved, the new position is shown directly above the first note-stack in that position. Positions are indicated by the letter C followed by the appropriate Arabic numeral (e.g. C6).
Discussion
Rules may be waived if there is a good reason for doing so, but I have never seen instances where it is advantageous to waive rules 2, 4, 5, 6 or 7.
Waiving rules 1, 3 and 8 implies leaving out fingerings or position indications. There's no law against this, of course, but I find it easier to just go ahead and finger something completely rather than stew over, "do I really need to finger this passage?"
There are so many ways to finger even the simplest passages, and I'd rather not make those decisions while playing. Even if the written fingerings are what you would do naturally, it's nice to have confirmation that you don't need to be doing something clever at that point. The fingerings only benefit; they can't hurt.
Rule 8: Note that the position indicators do not imply anything about the technique known as "barring". The fingerings make it perfectly clear when a given finger is required to hold down more than one string.
The C symbol has generally been used to indicate a barre. This redefinition to indicating position only causes no problem. The two are closely related. I doubt that any players throw down a barre at the mere sight of a C symbol without considering what the music says. Why introduce something else, such as P (for "position"), when C (for "barre" - huh???) is going to be discarded anyway?
Rules 7 and 8: Note that a position change is shown by a guide finger dash or a new position indication (e.g. C5), but never both. The guide finger dash has priority.
Rule 5: For ease of associating a fingering with its note, keeping it on the same level and in front of the note is critical. This surely has to do with the fact that precise, vertical placement defines a note. (Think of the confusion, however minor, caused by a "0" placed on the middle line to indicate an open G.)
The size of the finger number must be small - no taller than a notehead - to satisfy this requirement and stay in a vertical line.
Fingerings must never separate a note from any associated musical symbols, the only 2 varieties I can think of being accidental signs and arpeggiation symbols.
Rule 2: In case anyone needs justification (which isn't likely), there is a good reason not to give the fingering for a repeated note-stack. All printed fingerings send a message to the guitarist to "do something new." If a fingering indicates to do the same thing, the player receives a momentarily confusing mixed message. Think of what happens when you are turning right and somebody starts yelling, "Turn right, I said! Turn right!"
Eliminated notation
By following the fingering notation rules above, there is some familiar - if not downright ubiquitous - notation which will never again be needed.
1. String numbers: made obsolete by the position and finger indications.
2. Barre, half barre and fractional barre notation: replaced with explicit position and finger indications.
3. Continuation lines: formerly used to tell a player how long to do something, such as hold a barre or play on the same string. Superceded by notation that clearly indicates when to do something new.
4. Vertical lines or brackets for barres: superceded by explicit fingerings for barred notes.
Basic philosophy for harmonics
As with my proposal for notating fingerings, there is nothing radical here. The proposed notation for artificial harmonics is really just the way most editors have done it, except that now they will be fingered rigorously according to the above fingering proposal.
The proposal below for notating natural harmonics should be seen as a vast improvement over the many and haphazard ways it has been done in the past. Still, the system uses only familiar notational elements and requires no "getting used to."
To play an artificial harmonic, a player thinks of position and finger, exactly as for normal notes, while adding the special right-hand, artificial harmonic action.
To play a natural harmonic, the player is given the fret number (which most notation systems do), and fairly easily determines the correct string from the printed note.
Artificial harmonics
As just mentioned above, this proposal for the notation of artificial harmonics is in general agreement with the way they have been notated by most editors. The rules are simply:
1. Artificial harmonics are notated with diamond-shaped note-heads.
2. They are notated at the fretted pitch, not the sounding pitch.
3. They are fingered according to the rules for normal notes.
And that is all. No other indication is supplied.
In the past, editors have occasionally notated artificial harmonics at the higher octave. And in some cases editors have used a regular note head plus a symbol such as "+" or "o" above the note head to indicate an artificial harmonic. These practices are hereby declared obsolete.
Stating the obvious (to a guitarist), the philosophy is that the notehead and its fingering will tell the guitarist where to go with the left hand on the fingerboard, and the diamond shape will tell him to invoke the special right-hand, artificial harmonic plucking action.
If an editor is concerned about a non-guitarist looking at the music, he should explain in a prominent note that the diamond-shaped notes must sound an octave above the notated pitch.
The rules for natural harmonics
The idea for natural harmonics is that the player will be shown the fret number at which the harmonic is found. Most notation systems have done this by printing something like "Harm. 7". From there, the player has to make a quick, mental assessment of which string the harmonic is on. When the harmonics are notated at the pitches proposed here, this is fairly easy to do. [For the sake of completeness, this proposal covers some very rarely used harmonics. Discussion of the rare harmonics is kept in brackets like this. You may safely ignore anything presented here in brackets.]
1. A natural harmonic is notated with a diamond-shaped note-head.
2. A natural harmonic is shown at the sounding pitch or transposed down 1 or more octaves according to the chart below.
3. A natural harmonic is indicated by the letter H followed by the fret number at which the harmonic is found, e.g. H7. This is generally printed above the staff, over the note, but could be forced to other locations, such as below the staff if there are normal notes above the natural harmonic.
To determine which string to play, the
Natural Note player thinks about how he would play
harmonic lowered the printed note at...
-------- ---------- ---------------------------------------
H12 -- fret 12 (See Note 1.)
H12 1 octave open string (See Note 1.)
H5 2 octaves open string
H24 2 octaves open string (H24 = H5)
H7 1 octave fret 7
H19 1 octave fret 7 (H19 = H7)
H3 2 octaves fret 7 (H3 = 1 octave above H7)
H4 2 octaves fret 4
H9 2 octaves fret 4 (H9 = H4)
H16 2 octaves fret 4 (H16 = H4)
[ H10- 2 octaves fret 10 (See Note 2.) ]
[ H6- 2 octaves fret 10 (H6- = H10-) ]
[ H2.7 2 octaves fret 10 (H2.7 = H10-) ]
In an ascii approximation, here's how the natural harmonics will always look.
H12 _ _
H10 H6 H2.7
-<>-
H7 H19 H3 <> <> <>
---- ---- ---- ----
<> <> <> <> H4 H9 H16
---- H12 H5 H24 ---- ---- ---- -<>- -<>- -<>-
<> #<> <> <>
|------|----------------|-#<>---<>---<>--|----------------|--<>---<>---<>--|
| | <> <> <> | | | |
|--<>--|----------------|--<>---<>---<>--|-#<>---<>---<>--|----------------|
| | | | | <> <> <> |
|------|--<>---<>---<>--|----------------|--<>---<>---<>--|----------------|
| <> | | <> <> <> | | |
|------|--<>---<>---<>--|----------------|----------------|--<>---<>---<>--|
| | | | #<> <> <> | |
|--<>--|----------------|--<>---<>---<>--|----------------|----------------|
<> <> <> <> <> <>
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -#<>- -<>- -<>-
<> <> <>
-<>- -<>- -<>- ---- ---- ----
#<> <> <>
---- ---- ----
<> <> <>
Note 1. The H12 harmonic is the only one that presents a choice. It is best written at the sounding pitch if it is part of a note-stack containing a normal note, or, more generally, if it appears in a passage containing normal notes. If it is part of a strictly harmonic passage, it is best notated at the lower octave.
[Note 2. The H10- harmonic is 31.2 cents flat of the notated natural, equal-tempered note. It is found at .694 of the distance from the 9th to the 10th fret; thus, H9.7 may be a better indication. Likewise, H6- is .829 of the distance from the 5th to the 6th fret, so H5.8 may be better. H2.7 is, in fact, found at .675 of the distance from the 2nd to the 3rd fret.]
4. As with the position indication (e.g. C5), the natural harmonic indication (e.g. H7) remains in effect until another one (e.g. H5) is shown, or the passage of natural harmonics ends.
5. A left-hand fingering is generally supplied. This is not applicable, of course, if the harmonic is a "right-hand" natural harmonic.
6. Right-hand natural harmonics are indicated by "rh" above the natural harmonic indication, for example:
rh
H24
Discussion of harmonics
The above proposal for natural harmonics eliminates the 2 biggest stumbling blocks faced by guitarists struggling to read them: 1) the complete lack of consistency among editors regarding staff placement of the notehead, and 2) the often unwieldy number of leger lines.
Notice that there are several natural "groups" of natural harmonics. When you get familiar with these groups, it is easy to quickly determine, "What string would I play the notated note on if I were at such and such a fret?"
H12, H5 and H24 are related. Think open string.
H7, H3 and H19 are related. Think fret 7.
H4, H9 and H16 are related. Think fret 4.
[H10-, H6- and H2.7 are related. Think fret 10.]
Notice that H7 and H4 natural harmonics are "freebies" when notated as proposed here. Likewise with H12, when notated at the sounding pitch. [Likewise with H10-.] Just shoot for the string/fret intersection indicated by the printed note.
H5 and H24 and H12 (when notated an octave below) are pieces of cake, too. You're told the fret number, and the open string to use is shown by the note.
That hardly leaves any of the most commonly used natural harmonics to worry about at all. Just remember that H3 is the daughter of H7; and H9 is the twin of H4. Like I said - child's play.
Notice that the natural harmonic indications follow the same convention proposed for position indications - a letter/number combination. How elegant...
A nice fringe benefit of using the standardized pitches proposed here is that they are all "in the ballpark", if not right on, the pitch you would get from the normal note you would get from the spot where you play the harmonic. I know that's confusing, but the point is, when natural harmonics and normal notes occur together in the same note-stack or passage, the harmonic "fits in", rather than sticking out. Visualize a 5th string harmonic a sitting on the staff a few octaves above a 4th string normal note.
If an editor is uncomfortable with natural harmonics not written at pitch, a simple solution is to describe these octave displacements one time in explanatory notes. If he doesn't think that's acceptable, he could indicate 8va or 15ma above the harmonic indications throughout the piece. The natural harmonics would then be shown as follows:
8va 15ma 15ma | 8va 8va 15ma | 15ma 15ma 15ma | 15ma 15ma 15ma
H12 H5 H24 | H7 H19 H3 | H4 H9 H16 | H10- H6- H2.7
If a guitar player finds that unnecessary and annoying, he can easily white out the octave displacements. See, it's not hard to make everybody happy.
Other proposed conventions
Performance notes - Any helpful advice the editor has to offer besides the position and finger information should be handled by performance notes. An example of a playing technique for which there is no good, clear notation symbol is the hinge barre. This is a good candidate for a verbal description in a performance note.
Performance notes are given at the beginning of the piece, or maybe on the page containing the passage it refers to. Each is assigned a unique number. It is helpful if the performance note states the measure number it refers to.
At the appropriate spot in the music, above the staff, the performance number is shown in a box (e.g. 11 in a box.)
Performance notes 1 through 6 are reserved for preparatory barres. This is probably the most needed piece of fingering information not explicitly shown by the proposed system of fingering notation. Rather than devise some new, obscure notation, we can simply reserve performance notes 1 through 6 for this. They don't even need to be defined explicitly. For example, 5 in a box will be understood to mean "barre through string 5 at this point."
Measure numbers - are shown at the beginning of each staff. This keeps them out of the way of everything else.
Partial measures that are partial for musical reasons (not line break reasons) are numbered.
Measure numbers are vital in ensemble works, but are also very useful in solo works. They help greatly in any sort of discussion about the piece - for instance, when you or the editor supply performance notes.
Thumb fingering - A capital T denotes fingering by the left hand thumb, whether in front of the neck, as in cello technique, or up and over the top of the neck from behind, as in fingerpicking and rock guitar technique.
The T is placed directly in front of the note, just like the finger numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Damping - When damping of a note is necessary, you or the editor can emphasize this and provide a solution by showing a damping indication directly below the note to be damped - not where the damping takes place.
The damping indication consists of the letter d followed by the symbol for the damping finger. (Notice how this nicely adheres to the letter/number pattern of position and natural harmonic indications.)
Thus the damping symbols for the left hand are d1, d2, d3 and d4. The damping symbols for the right hand are dp, di, dm and da - of which dp sees the most use, of course. There is no need to distinguish between motions made solely for the purpose of damping and motions made in the act of, or in preparation of, playing another note.
Right-hand fingerings - On this subject, my feelings are like many other guitarist's feelings on left-hand fingerings - leave them out. All right, there will be cases where a non-obvious right-hand solution is required, and you or the editor may want to write it in.
The time-honored p, i, m and a symbols are fine. My minor contribution to the issue is that the i m a symbols should be written above the staff and follow the general contour of the music. The "p" symbol should be written below the staff. That way, the right-hand symbols appear ready to "grab" the notes, in much the same way the real fingers are positioned to grab the strings.
Ornamentation - The finger numbers used in playing an ornament are shown directly above the ornament symbol. For example, 101 may go above a mordent, or 13101 above a turn. When a specific rhythm is called for, the the editor should describe it in a performance note.
The note which is ornamented is fingered according to the rules as if there were no ornament. If the ornamentation is written out explicitly, it is fingered according to the rules. Only a representative part of the fingering for an extended trill need be shown, for example, 3131.
Alternate tuning - shown at the beginning of the piece by the equation "String number = Note name". For example, 6 = D.
Slurs (hammer-ons and pull-offs) - indicated by dotted curves.
Solid curves already have too many other musical meanings, including ties, non-slurred legato and phrasing.
Scope of accidentals - Within a measure, when an accidental (sharp, flat, natural, etc.) is applied to a note, each new appearance of that note at a different octave must also have an accidental shown, whether it's the same accidental or not.
There have been too many examples of each of the opposing conventions to choose one over the other. Sometimes the lack of an accidental means the player is supposed to supply it, sometimes it means he's not supposed to.
The only solution is to require explicit accidentals.
Soundboard letter
Here's a letter by me that was published in the Summer 1990 Soundboard (Volume 17, no. 2.) Even after all these years I'm not too embarrassed by it.
The biggest problem that has arisen since then is that I've come to realize I don't know what "reading music" means. Is it limited to just the very first run-through, playing unfamiliar music cold? After that - and even during it - you're not strictly reading, as some degree of memory kicks in. But if we say that it does only apply to the first run-through, how much practical value does the concept have? Any?
It's enough to give you a headache. Anyhow, let's pretend it means something. Here's the letter.
To: Soundboard magazine
From: Donald Sauter
Date: Summer 1990In a letter to Frank Koonce regarding the guitar notation project, Peter Segal states, "It's no secret that too many guitarists are abysmal readers." (Soundboard, Winter 1989-90, p52.) He clearly believes fingerings are to blame for this situation.
I wonder if the situation is really as bad as he states. I've played in guitar ensembles, and a guitar orchestra, at various guitar festivals and workshops over the last ten years. Even though most of the guitarists have little ensemble experience - and many have little total playing experience - the groups always seem to do quite well.
Accusations that guitarists are poor readers have been around a long time, of course. It's only fair to ask, what exactly does this mean? How do you define an absolute scale for reading ability? Guitarists could be compared to each other and, just as for any instrument, you would find a wide range. But how can guitarists as a group be compared to flutists and violinists when they are playing different music on different instruments? Suppose many pianists can play the "Toccata Y Lamenta" by Robert Sierra (in the same Soundboard issue, p60) correctly on the first shot, but few or no guitarists can - what could you conclude?
I would like to argue that what is perceived as "abysmal reading" is really a manifestation of special problems unique to the guitar. I am not saying that the guitar is "harder" to play than other instruments. That would be indefensible; all instruments are infinitely hard. Any instrument - piano, violin, harmonica, bongo, you name it - could have music composed for it which is just beyond the capability of any living human. The problem unique to the guitar is the choice of locations for almost any given note coupled with the multi-voiced texture of the music.
Consider an example in the Sierra piece - the chord pattern that descends chromatically in the top line of the 2nd page.
_____ __________ |--| |--|--|--| _____________________ ____11__10__9__8__7__ ____11__10__9__8__7__ etc... _____9___8__7__6__5__ _____0_______________ _____0_______________ 6=D __0__________________Everything goes fine, until you run out of fingerboard. The fingering pattern has to be broken, but where and how? There are a number of possibilities, and all the ones I tried had difficulties.
But the point here is that a pianist doesn't have this problem - he just continues the chromatic descent to its end. A violinist doesn't deal with a passages like this, at least on a regular basis.
Consider an example in the Fiset transcription of Grieg's "Anitra's Dance" (same Soundboard, p45) - those jumpy octaves found, for example, in staff 4 of the first page. A pianist has no decisions to make - and the implementation is trivially easy. A violinist has no choice but to play double-stops on adjacent strings. A guitarist, on the other hand, is faced with a staggering number of possibilities.
The above examples are the norm for guitarists, not exceptions, and that's why editors supply fingerings. Mr. Segal admits the usefulness of fingerings in music for beginners, but would like to see it minimized in "concert level" music.
I wonder if there is any value at all in making this distinction. What is "concert" music? Does it depend on the name of the composer, or the length of the piece, or the number of notes per second, or the amount of time spent in upper positions? I suspect any effort to differentiate "concert" from other music is doomed to failure.
Good luck to Frank Koonce in his effort to produce a manual of style. Personally, my wish is that the results would be based on reading tests. Guitarists could play a variety of musical excerpts, each one fingered according to the competing systems. Then he makes a simple decision - which system worked best for him? Perhaps the GFA could facilitate this either through the "Soundboard", a separate mailing or at a festival. Is this out of the question?
I have spent a lot of time fingering guitar music, and rewriting fingerings not notated to my liking. I know what my abilities are in this respect and I don't need to prove them on every piece. Finding the best fingering system and getting it into use would be mutually beneficial. The time I save working on a new piece can be spent playing other new pieces. I have a lot more fun - and guitar composers make more money. [End letter.]
Since I didn't go into my proposal in the Soundboard letter, and since some people may have jumped into this page at about this point, it might be worth summarizing my fingering notation proposal in a nutshell: every note is fingered, except for repeated notes and chords; the finger number is printed right in front of the note; finger numbers for a chord are printed in a perfectly straight, vertical line; position changes are always indicated by a guide finger dash or an explicit position indication; string numbers and barre notation are never used. Go to the top of the page for all the details and discussion.
Published fingerings
At the time of the effort to produce a manual of style, my thinking was, "my system is very good; editors would do well to use it in their publications."
That's changed. My belief in my system hasn't flagged a bit, but I would no longer argue that published music must come fingered like this, the reason being, fingerings are personal. (Everybody else already knew that.)
I used to bend over backwards following the editor's fingerings, figuring, "he's really smart!" This had the benefit of forcing me to become familiar with the upper reaches of the fingerboard. But now my philosophy is to finger things as simply as possible. This generally means fingering in the lowest possible position, without fear of open strings. The less struggling I do, the better the piece sounds. And I have talked with people who agree that the guitar just sounds better played in lower positions.
As the years went by, and my self-confidence in this area increased, my fingerings diverged more and more drastically from the editor's - generally speaking, of course.
In spite of this, I never complain about an editor's fingerings. I am always grateful for his suggestion. I view it as a reference or jumping-off point. If I don't like a printed fingering, I try others until I find something I like better.
Often when I change a fingering I'll think, "Oh, I see what he's up to, even though it doesn't quite work for me." Sometimes, after trying a few successively "better" fingerings, I return to the editor's original and think, "What do you know, that's the best one after all!"
I feel like I have a very good aptitude for seeing fingering possibilities (much greater than for actually playing guitar, ha ha) but I still occasionally see published fingerings that make me think, "Wow, that's really clever! I wonder if I would have thought of it."
The point of all this is, please continue to publish fingerings, but I'm not much concerned how you notate them because I'm resigned to re-notating them anyway.
A plan for notating your fingerings
All right, just one more section, and I'm finished with this topic forever. [Apparently not. See response to Jan de Kloe's Soundboard article below. DS. Dec 2004.]
To put in your fingerings, you will need:
1. white-out pen.
Bottled white-out will eventually drive you berserk. The only white-out pen I can recommend is the Pentel Fine Point Correction Pen, Multi-purpose. Like it says, it fixes everything - printed music, xeroxes, and your own ink.
2. a very fine tip, black, wet ink pen for the fingerings.
The problem with most pens is that the ink "feathers" out over the paper to a lesser or greater extent. I used to have very good luck with Pentech Datatwins. These made an extremely fine, black line, and were cheap and readily available. I don't see them around any more, though.
Then I used a high quality drafting pen by Alvin, with a 0.1 mm tip. (The line is not that fine, though.) I have tried a lot of pens, and these two were the only ones that gave the desired fine line without feathering. (I have a Staedtler 01 "Pigment Liner" drawing and writing pen, but am not satisfied with the fineness of the line.)
3. fine tip, black, ballpoint pen for fixing staff lines.
The Pentel R.S.V.P. gives the blackest line and has the best ink flow of all the ballpoint pens I've tried.
You don't have to, of course, but you could completely finger the piece of music on the very first run-through - and be playing it correctly from the the 2nd time onwards. (I think this is what it's all about; everybody else thinks I need my head examined.)
Here is a suggested sequence of steps.
1. As you're playing the piece, DON'T THINK ABOUT MAKING MUSIC. (That got everybody's attention.) Continually ask yourself, is my chosen fingering for this note obvious enough that I will remember it without my guitar in hand? If not, write it in as neatly as humanly possible where it goes in front of the note. If there is something in the way, jot your fingering above the staff.
2. When you have gone through the whole piece in this manner, take your music, pen and white-out to a work table. If you performed step 1 perfectly, you won't need your guitar. Since step 1 is never performed perfectly, take your guitar, too.
3. Wherever you jotted notes above the staff, zap whatever was in the way in front of the note with the white-out pen. Note that you have to zap even correct fingerings if they are misplaced. If you're afraid you won't remember what those fingerings were, jot them above the staff.
I know how insane that sounds, but it goes fast when you get in the groove, and the pay-off is that you will be playing the piece correctly on the 2nd shot, while everybody else who wrestles with incomplete, sloppy or wrong fingerings will take weeks or months to get it.
4. On the next pass, write in all the the fingerings according to the rules. As you do this, play the piece mentally and put in guide finger dashes and position indications. Grab you guitar for a moment whenever you have a doubt about a fingering.
5. On the next pass, take the white-out pen and zap all the riff-raff - out-of-place fingerings, string numbers, barre indications and continuation lines. This is one of the most satisfying experiences on earth.
6. Now you need to reconstruct the broken staff lines. I use a cheap, 25 cent, school supply-type, colored plastic ruler and the black ballpoint pen. Keep a paper towel between your hand and the page so you don't smear the ink that was written over white-out. That ink takes a long time to dry. This step goes very quickly, and is well worth it.
7. Take everything back to your music stand and proceed to play the piece perfectly.
Ok, unless you're a lot better than me at this, you probably made a few mistakes or forgot a few things, like guide finger dashes and position indications.
Also, as I said at the beginning, after putting in fingerings to my specification, I often see even more and potentially better solutions. No problem. Continue modifying your fingerings until you have exactly what works best for you.
Response to Jan de Kloe's article,
"A House Style for Engraving Guitar Music"
Jan's article appeared in Soundboard magazine, Vol. XXX, No. 2, 2004. Although Jan in no way says, "Here it is; this is how to do it," my worry is that such a well-done job appearing in such a respected guitar publication may lead readers to think that this does represent the final word on how to notate guitar fingerings. I had been waiting - not so patiently - for the issue to rise again since the fizzling out of the 1989 effort spearheaded by Frank Koonce.
The expected thing to say here is that I'd like to see Jan's article spark a new round of discussion on the subject. Actually, that would probably leave me even more sad and frustrated. I'm conditioned to believe that discussion rarely leads anywhere, much less to anything concrete and useful.
I would like to see a concerted effort to develop a Manual of Guitar Fingering Notation which has the approval of the majority of guitarists who care about the issue. Of course, once developed, nobody would be holding a gun to any publisher's head to use it. But a publisher would know that if he ignores it, he is going against the explicit desires of the majority of guitarists.
At this point you have every reason to think that my intention is to pit my own "wondrous" system against Jan's system. You're wrong. My fingering system is for the end user; it's for the guitarist himself to apply to the music he buys or writes. I'll admit that when I stuck my nose into Frank's effort back in 1989, I did want my system considered as a standard for guitar music publishers. It's simple; it's efficient. It is so clear that it frequently gets itself accused of being "pseudo-tablature" - high praise, in my book.
If you jumped directly here without wading through the dry details above, here's a quick summary of the most important features of my system: every note is fingered except for repeated notes and chords; the finger number is printed right in front of the note; finger numbers are printed in a perfectly straight, vertical line; position changes are always indicated, either by a guide finger dash or by an explicit position indication; string numbers and barre notation are never used.
The problem, of course, is that the choice of fingerings is personal, and even if a publisher rigorously used my system of fingering notation, even I would still have to change the fingerings themselves to my own liking.
So you can see that if every guitarist were like me, it simply wouldn't matter how fingerings are notated. They're all going to get ripped out, anyway. But, all guitarists are not like me, and I suppose many do adhere more or less to the published fingerings, with maybe a fingering crossed out here, and one penciled in there. So if a publisher is going to provide extensive fingerings within the staff, he might as well notate them in the most helpful way possible. And thus, if a project to develop a manual of style is ever undertaken I would definitely like my system given serious consideration with all the others. But, just to reiterate, my intention here is not "me vs. Jan."
In Jan's first sentence, he makes it clear his suggestions are "primarily for engravers." What I've done is take most of Jan's examples and renotate the fingerings according to my system. I left my fingerings in a handwritten form to help keep it clear that what I am proposing is for the end user to apply.
I also renotated the fingerings in passages from two other pieces in the same Soundboard. One was engraved by Richard Long, Soundboard editor and the man behind Tuscany Publications. The other is the work of Richard Yates, long-time contributor of the "Transcriber's Art" column in the Soundboard. I'm totally flabbergasted by how three editors, each of whose work is very well-known in the guitar world, can arrive at such completely different fingering notation systems. Surely each one of them have given a tremendous amount of thought to the matter. Although I've just pooh-poohed the idea of some big, amorphous discussion of guitar fingering notation, I would be fascinated to hear Jan, Richard and Richard go head to head to head on the subject. How about it, guys?
While I was rolling I found another passage in the Soundboard two issues earlier which cried out to be included. The fingerings were very full and the notation was different still from that of the three editors above. The passage also includes harmonics, which gives me a chance to present that aspect of my notation proposal.
So here are the examples with some discussion. The original published version is given on top; my version with renotated fingerings is below. Note that each one of my renotated versions shows a position indication (for example, C2) at the start that would not be needed if the preceding fingerings already had you in that position. In case you weren't paying attention above, I never notate barres. C2, C5, etc., ALWAYS MEAN POSITION.
Example 14 (Jan de Kloe):
In the original, the positioning of the finger number at a level above or below the corresponding notehead in a space is intentional(!) Jan writes (page 37, col. 2, last par.): "Left-hand fingers within the staff are placed on, not in between staff lines..." No reasons for this curious rule are given, and I must admit that it takes me by complete surprise. I had always imagined such "sloppy" fingering placement was simply due to an absence of thought given to the matter (or a drunk engraver.) If anything, one might think a hard ruling would go the other way - finger numbers are placed between staff lines. Note the amount of discussion in the article devoted to the problems caused by a staff line slicing a number through the middle.
My argument is that the readability gained by pegging the number to the exact vertical position of the musical pitch far outweighs any loss of readability due to the staff line crossing through the number. If the notes were removed from Jan's example, no one could look at the fingerings left behind and cry, "Pseudo-tablature!", that's for sure.
Note that in this and all of Jan's examples I have reconnected the "interrupted" staff lines. When I first saw this technique used in the Soundboard, I'll admit I didn't even notice it. Must've been a bad eye day. But now that my attention is drawn to it, it looks amateurish and sloppy. I've spent untold hours of my life restoring broken staff lines on copies of old music, making them look like a million bucks - and, ten times easier to read. Why go the other way? Does any other instrument trash nice, continuous staff lines? This is, admittedly, a personal opinion. It would be hard to argue that the number in the gap isn't easier to read, but, for me, the benefit is not significant enough to outweigh my annoyance at the injury to real, time-honored, universally-accepted music notation. In any case, broken staff lines are not part of my proposal one way or the other. When you white-out the fingerings in the piece of music you are working on, you will have gobs of gaps, and you may leave them with my blessing. (But, just as an experiment, try restoring all the lines in one of the staffs and tell me what you think.)
In my version of example 14 above you will note that the "finger numbers in a straight, vertical line" rule takes precedence over the "finger number directly in front of the note" rule. Where there are unisons or seconds, adjust the column of finger numbers so that its midpoint is at the same level as the midpoint of the notes.
Example 15 (Jan de Kloe):
I wasn't sure what was intended here, so I added a key signature and (6) = D and corrected(?) some fingerings.
Notice that the two guide finger dashes are concise indications of a position change; they do not imply that a fingertip must follow along the string from note to note.
Notice that in two spots Jan stacks the finger numbers in a straight line and in three cases has them hug, so to speak, the corresponding notes. His explanation, if I understand, is based on "limited space" - although I see loads of wasted space in each measure, particularly at the ends. I gather that Jan's computer program decides where the music goes, and then he has to wrestle with it to work in fingerings. "Fingering is considered subordinate to the music and is place last." In this case, "the barline preceding the chord needs to be offset to the left to make space for the fingering." Sounds to me like a totally unacceptable software limitation. Why shouldn't it allow a simple repeating sequence of music symbols, one after the other, as needed: barline; stack of finger numbers; arpeggiation symbol; stack of accidentals; stack of notes...? No need for an engraver to "offset" anything to make room for its neighbor.
On the other hand, once a music symbol is engraved, I will on rare occasions shift it to make comfortable room for a fingering. In this example I shifted note 4 in measure 3 slightly to the left to give the finger numbers for the following chord breathing room. If that sounds like a lot of trouble, I assure you it's not at all.
I got a comment that the chord in measure 2 in Jan's example is easier to read than mine. I ask everyone to bear in mind that if they implement this proposal, they will be looking at their own handwritten numerals, not mine. In particular, over the years, there have been quite a few guitarists who have laughed and made the same comment: my "4" looks like a "1". Sorry about that.
It would be torture for everyone if I went through all these examples defending every element of my proposal note by note (as I sort of do in Example 16 below). In this case let me point out that Jan's fingerings do not uniquely specify the position of that chord. Admittedly, it is highly unlikely that I would do so, but I can see in a flash that those notes with those fingerings work just as well in position 13. (Any chord that doesn't use string 2 or 6 can be played in the exact same formation one string lower, five frets up.) There might be a reason for a composer or editor wanting that.
Example 16 (Jan de Kloe):
It's rare when notes are so cramped that you don't have room to write finger numbers in front of them. My guitar friend Bob commented that this was the one example where Jan's version was easier to read than mine. Although Bob is one of the best sight-readers I know of, I do have trouble accepting his conclusion, trying everything in my power to be impartial. This example of Jan's stopped me dead in my tracks.
Whether the first note is to be played at all is unknown - not Jan's fault, but an artifact of the ambiguity of our one symbol which does quadruple duty: for ties, legato (playing smooth), ligados (hammer-ons and pull-offs) and phrasing. But supposing it is to be played, Jan doesn't tell us which finger works best in the context of where we've been and where we're going.
Then I stewed mightily over which notes were involved in the glissando, and which finger is used in the glissando. After giving the matter many more minutes of thought than the average audience would patiently grant me in the performance of this measure, I decided to discard the glissando as a mistake, although, of course, it may be a performance indication with which I am not familiar.
Then comes the question of where the work on string 6 starts and stops. If it starts on the low A#, then where were we playing the previous notes - on string 7??? I decided the notation was simply misleading, bordering in my mind on actual error, and that the example is more than likely for a conventional 6-string guitar.
Then the notation tells me to abandon string 6 after the low B. No problem there - we simply pick up the low C# with finger 4 from within position 1. If that's correct, we need one, two or three more shifts to end up at the high A# with finger 1. None of these shifts involve any unusual effort, but I might find myself a bit bugged at the editor for not providing some suggestions among all the possibilities for shift points. It's not like he's a shrinking violet when it comes to slapping on fingering information. The resolution, of course, is that, if we hadn't followed the jump to the first position, all the fingerings fit the notes in position 6 perfectly. Many of you who have hung in there to this point are bursting to shake me by the shoulders and yell, "But it's obvious the notation for string 6 is meant to continue on!", in which case I say, "Yes? So where does the string 6 work end?" What about the upcoming D#? Do we shift to position 11 for that? I leave as an exercise to the reader how well that option works out.
In conclusion, I theorize that Bob quickly saw what was going on from my version, and then looked back at Jan's and thought, "Wow, look at those big, clear numbers!" Perhaps I've done myself a disservice by putting my examples right beside the originals. No matter, reading tests would easily determine which system among those submitted is the most readable, and which is most preferred by guitarists. And the two do not necessarily have to be the same.
Example 17 (Jan de Kloe):
I hope you have a guitar in hand for these examples. Notice how the guide finger dashes provide performance help. With just bare finger numbers one might see and grab the D minor chord all at once. With the guide finger dash, you see that it is actually formed in two steps.
Example 18 (Jan de Kloe):
This includes a rare example of a finger number behind a notehead. No need to move mountains to get it in front. This is perhaps the second or third time I've seen this in the thousands of pages of guitar music I have refingered.
Example 20 (Jan de Kloe):
I propose a, m, and i printed above the corresponding notes, and p below. To my mind, this shows the right-hand fingers ready to "swing" from above at their notes.
Example 22 (Jan de Kloe):
My system makes all string numbers and continuation lines unnecessary. Isn't "H12" wonderfully clear and concise?
Example 23 (Jan de Kloe):
My fingered version opens me up to charges of "over fingered!" You are always welcome to put in as few finger numbers as you want, for instance, just the top notes in the last half of the first measure. To my mind, a partially fingered chord looks unbalanced and causes a confusion, no matter how slight, as to whether all the notes are struck or not. Even after all these decades of using my system I will occasionally stop to wonder if I really need to fully finger such and such a passage. And the answer is always the same: yes. Fingerings are only helpful; they never hurt. To leave some out causes an imbalance. And it's quicker and easier to put them in than to stew over whether they're really necessary.
Notice how much more helpful it is to notate the change to position 5 when it happens at the beginning of the second measure, as opposed to supplying barre notation after you've already moved there. Notice how weak the string number is in helping you find the right note. Notice how tremendously unlikely it would be for you to go for that note on any string other than string 2.
Example 24 (Jan de Kloe):
What is that fol-de-rol above Jan's staff??? I think Michael Lorimer said it best on the 1989 notation panel: "When I read, I never take time to decipher modifications to C, do you?" Nope.
Example 26 (Jan de Kloe):
In Part A, notice again the use of the guide finger dashes in my version to indicate position changes. In Part B I couldn't rectify the fingerings with the music, so I changed the fingerings.
Handel Sarabande (Richard Yates):
In context, the opening C6 would be made redundant by the guide finger dash. Note that Richard Yates does put finger numbers on the same level as the notes, and puts them in straight, vertical columns. He also uses guide finger dashes the same way I do, although I like to exaggerate the upward or downward slant. These aspects of Richard's notation started to appear in the Fall 1996 Soundboard. If you check his "Transcriber's Art" columns before then, you will see the time-honored finger-numbers-all-over-kingdom-come style of fingering notation. Perhaps it's a coincidence, or perhaps I'm imagining things, or perhaps I'm deluding myself, but I believe that this change came about as the result of my discussion with Richard about fingering notation in April 1996.
Richard explicitly notates hinge barres in this passage. My system does not have explicit hinge barre notation; the player is expected to determine himself whether rocking a finger one way or the other works for him. If an editor using my system were concerned about a player missing a good opportunity for a hinge barre at a certain point, he would use a performance note.
Richard also uses gaps in the staff line, although they are not quite as big as Jan's.
Brown Studies, No. 3, by James Park (engraved by Richard Long):
In private communication Richard Long told me his own system "is probably closest to the ideas John Duarte articulated back in the 1970s in the old Guitar & Lute Magazine published in Hawaii, although John himself has moved on and changed a number of things, especially barres." This is one of the most heavily fingered staffs in the whole piece; five of the 13 staffs have no fingerings whatsoever. There are no finger numbers within any of the staffs. This makes it the most different system from mine of any examined here. As such, I like it the least, right? Not so fast. For someone like me who adds his own fingerings to everything, it is actually the most convenient to work with. Paradoxical, eh?
Notice there are 6 position changes in this excerpt, but no position indication symbols. The position changes are all forced by guide finger dashes and single-fret extensions and contractions of the 1 finger.
Midtown Waltz, by Joe Rosochacki:
Notice in measure 54 that placing the finger numbers before the barline doesn't hamper readability at all. There would be no reason to publish the fingerings like that, of course.
It took me a moment to determine what was intended by the harmonics in measure 59. I rewrote them according to my proposal where harmonics are notated at some octave displacement of the sounding pitch. Even with harmonics, string numbers are absolutely unnecessary and, in fact, get in the way. In the case of H9 harmonics, the player instantly makes the correlation with H4 harmonics and plays the string that has the given 4th fret note. In the case of H5 harmonics, the player instantly thinks "open string". In the examples above there are places where I would alter the fingerings to suit myself, and this is definitely one of those spots. I would change the H9 harmonic to an H4 harmonic. For my fingers, that H9/H5 combo is definitely high-risk.
Take a look at the harmonics in the last three measures. A natural harmonic indication symbol (H7) stays in effect until another one (H12) comes along. When a position indication symbol (C3) comes along, it signals that we're back to regular fretting and, thus, any harmonic is artificial. (Based on how the harmonics were originally notated in measure 59, one might conclude the final harmonic is a natural H5 harmonic on string 1. I think an artificial harmonic on the A note is intended.)
In Jan's introduction he states that harmonics are not in the scope of his article. I hope that even the small example above shows that harmonic notation is intimately bound up with fingering notation. You can read all of my proposal for harmonics in the old part of this page above, but here is a summary. Artificial harmonics are notated with diamond-shaped note-heads at the fretted pitch. Natural harmonics are notated with diamond-shaped note-heads at at the sounding pitch or transposed down one or more octaves depending on the fret. They are indicated by a symbol such as H7. Both kinds of harmonics are fingered according to the rules for normal notes.
That's it for the fingering examples. While I'm at it let me comment on various statements in Jan's article.
Page 40, column 1. "Roman numerals are used most frequently [for fingerboard positions] - much to my dismay, because in this age of computers I think there should be a law against them."
Hooray for Jan! I think the law should have been passed decades before the computer age. I stirred things up when I proposed the same thing to Frank's notation panel back in 1989. JD of England humphed, "It may be, though I doubt it, that Roman numerals are not widely understood in the U.S.A., though they are elsewhere." Maybe that's my problem. Remember that Soundboard issue designated Vol. XXVIIII? But, Jan, you're Belgian; what's your excuse?
Page 34, column 2. "Of course, my engraving esthetics have changed over the years, and will probably continue to do so."
It seems this sentiment is obligatory for participants in any guitar fingering notation discussion. It gets me in trouble, as it did in 1989, because I can't honestly say the same thing. My system came together in the late 1970s and has been rock solid ever since. In the thousands of pieces of guitar music I've played since then, I've never once seen an instance where I felt like, gee, I'd like to notate a barre here, or a continuation line there, or sprinkle finger numbers randomly around the notes, or raggedy up the column of finger numbers, or write a Roman numeral or string number. I've jettisoned everything except finger numbers, guide finger dashes and position indications, and I can't imagine distilling it down any further. To get the fingering information to the brain any more quickly and clearly would require a pressure injection directly into the cortex.
Page 35, column 1. "New engraving technology allows us to raise our standards. While then there was something good in leaving fingering outside the staff, this no longer seems to be a valid point."
I don't follow the logic, or else don't buy it. I would argue the question of fingerings within or outside of the staff is just as valid as it ever was. As expressed earlier, I would probably choose published skeletal fingering outside the staff to make the job of putting my own fingerings in a little easier.
Still, if I were a publisher I'm not sure which direction I would lean. A fully fingered edition should satisfy both camps because it's actually a very quick and easy job to remove all the fingerings with a white-out pen. On the other hand, I'm sure many guitarists who are put off by dense fingerings don't know that.
Page 35, column 1. "In my opinion there should be no fingering of non-educational material if it does not add essential information to the score."
I believe that it is futile trying to make a distinction between "educational", "recreational", "concert", etc., music. I've expressed this before in a letter to Soundboard, reprinted somewhere above. Every piece of guitar music I've ever played is a study for every other piece of guitar music I will ever play - for every piece that has been or ever will be written, in fact.
Fingerings show how a piece of music "fits" on the guitar fingerboard. Just because notes are crammed on a treble clef doesn't make it guitar music. Fingerings, even if they might seem obvious - and they rarely are - provide us with the "essential information" that this is, in fact, guitar music. Of course, if a publisher wants to force every customer to start from scratch, that's his decision.
Page 42, column 1. "The Future: As paper is being replaced by flat screens..."
I think we are still a long way from that in the music world. But let me state my number one wish along those lines in case a sympathetic computer peripheral manufacturer happens by. I would like a super thin, super lightweight, oversized, portrait-mode, fold-up double-screen peripheral for playing music from PDF files. It would have foot-controlled page advance. I'm tired of turning my laptop on its side to get one undersized page of music at a time while playing the treasures of the Royal Copenhagen Library.
I don't expect many, if any, guitarists stopping by here to say, "Wow, this is great! I'm going to start using this system right now!" Probably very few guitarists have given the matter much thought at all. In fact, there would be very little need to if my impression is valid of the typical guitarist hacking and slashing through a piece for days, weeks or months to finally "learn" it.
Richard Yates correctly deduced that I believe the "ideal fingering is that which best facilitates sight-reading." I might say that the goal of my notation system is:
Having never played a piece before, to play it perfectly on the second time and every time thereafter.
The first run-through is expressly for the purpose of solving every problem in the piece and deciding how each and every note is to be played. My notation system is about recording the fingering choices in the clearest possible way. It's about never having to re-solve a problem or reinvent a wheel. If that sounds radical, I'm not completely alone. Frank Koonce wrote: "When any technical requirements are left unclear by the notation of the printed music, they should be marked by the performer immediately after his or her first reading so that the same mistakes aren't made twice." (Soundboard XX/1, page 45.)
This is the ideal, of course. First of all, I've never played any piece perfectly on any run-through. "Perfectly" or "correctly" is used here as a shorthand for the peak performance that the guitarist can deliver in view of his current abilities. Second of all, one may simply be in the mood to play through pieces in a relaxed mode, using the published fingerings, for the pure fun of it. I do it myself. But it's nice to have the tools to kick into high gear and knock out any piece - recreational or "great" or "important" - in a page per hour or less. Wouldn't that be expected of a "real" musician?
One time at a guitar festival I told a person how I play tons of guitar music - everything I get my hands on. She exploded, "What's the point???" Gee, I dunno. What's the point of getting out of bed in the morning? Less philosophically, why does a poetry lover read lots of poems rather than the same five or six over and over again?
Perhaps the most realistic thing I can hope for out of all this is a guitar teacher here and there pausing to think: "Hey, maybe this would be a more fun way to approach the guitar for some of my students. I could pull out a new and different piece of music at every lesson so they can learn how to buckle down and solve every problem and notate the solution." After all, getting the notes down is the best possible first step in either case - playing a piece just for the fun of it, or working it up for a Carnegie Hall debut 20 years down the line.
Contact Donald Sauter: send an email; view guestbook; sign guestbook.
Back to Donald Sauter's main page.
Back to the top of this page.