# Circle of Fifths



## bluebayou

A person recommended that I learn the circle. Not an issue. BUT, in moving clockwise why after the B is the next F# and then C#. Why sharp rather than just plain F and C? Is there a specific reason why or is it one of those music things " that is just the way it is"? 
And in the scales in the different keys and modes why is a particular note sharp or flat?? Or is that a long, long, long explanation? 
I can find tons of info on the circle but not one that explains EVERYTHING and in detail.

thanks


----------



## amagras

Probably because you don't need to understand rather than get challenged by the circle. It is supposed to help you with harmonic/melodic jumps in an unusual way (or should I say in a close-to-real life situations way?). Just pick a chord or a scale or both and play them following the circle of fifths and you'll be doing great workout sessions, then pick up a cadence, let's say II-V7 and try to move it over the circle and the follow it with an improvised melody... you'll hate the person who told you first about the circle of 5ths!


----------



## greco

I am posting this as a reference only. TBH, I am completely confused by this entire concept.

There are hundreds of different (looking) diagrams of the Circle of 5ths...I chose this one










HOWEVER, This one might make it more enjoyable to learn due to the nice sunshine and view of the ocean......


----------



## bw66

bluebayou said:


> ... why after the B is the next F# and then C#. Why sharp rather than just plain F and C? Is there a specific reason why or is it one of those music things " that is just the way it is"?


It is an F# and not an F because the 5th note in a B major scale is an F#. The circle continues around, and when you get to Bb, _then_ the next note will be an F.



bluebayou said:


> And in the scales in the different keys and modes why is a particular note sharp or flat?? Or is that a long, long, long explanation?


The notes in a scale are always the same relative distance from the "root" note. If you sit down at a piano and play the white keys starting at C (the one immediately to left left of the group of two black keys) and playing up to the next C you will hear a major scale - the classic "doh-re-mi-fah-soh-lah-tee-doh". If you were to shift to the next white key and start on D and play the same "doh-re-mi..." by ear, you will find that there will be two black keys in the scale - these are F# and C#. So if you are playing in the key of D major, F and C will be sharp.

I hope that make sense.


----------



## Dorian2

Never question the circle. And do not forget the circle of 4ths going backwards neither. Very important concepts in building a tune and musical understanding.


----------



## pughwilliam

> The notes in a scale are always the same relative distance from the "root" note. If you sit down at a piano and play the white keys starting at C (the one immediately to left left of the group of two black keys) and playing up to the next C you will hear a major scale - the classic "doh-re-mi-fah-soh-lah-tee-doh". If you were to shift to the next white key and start on D and play the same "doh-re-mi..." by ear, you will find that there will be two black keys in the scale - these are F# and C#. So if you are playing in the key of D major, F and C will be sharp.
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^This! This is where the sharps (or flats) come from. Play it on the piano and listen. Start on C and you only need the white keys. Start on G and you'll need the black f# key instead of the white f key for the scale to sound the same.
> 
> he circle is just a way to help you remember how many sharps (or flats) each key has and what order they come in. That explains the f# and c# in the circle too : they are the first two sharps you add so that by the time you get there (to find the number of sharps in the key of f), it turns out the f is already sharp. Same thing with the c after. Going the other way it's all about flats so you have the same problem after F (since b is your first flat, by the time you try to find the number of flats in b, it's already flat. Same thing with all the others.
> 
> Does this help?
> 
> Will
Click to expand...


----------



## GTmaker

Dorian2 said:


> Never question the circle. And do not forget the circle of 4ths going backwards neither. Very important concepts in building a tune and musical understanding.


These kind of statements have no meaning in the real world....they are only meant to confuse and distract...

What I can say about the circle of 5ths is that it should be very obvious if you look at the top chart that Greco posted,
that a term known as "RELATIVE MINOR" becomes obvious.
Look at the individual notes of the C and then the Am ....They are exactly the same...
So..... if you have a solo that's centered in the C chord, you can glide right over to the Am chord and the continuity will be the same..

Know your relative minor chords and you will be able to solo up and down the fret-board in the same key...
NOW that's usefully shit to know.

G.


----------



## greco

GTmaker said:


> These kind of statements have no meaning in the real world....they are only meant to confuse and distract...


Could you please explain this statement. Thanks.


----------



## Dorian2

GTmaker said:


> These kind of statements have no meaning in the real world....they are only meant to confuse and distract...
> 
> What I can say about the circle of 5ths is that it should be very obvious if you look at the top chart that Greco posted,
> that a term known as "RELATIVE MINOR" becomes obvious.
> Look at the individual notes of the C and then the Am ....They are exactly the same...
> So..... if you have a solo that's centered in the C chord, you can glide right over to the Am chord and the continuity will be the same..
> 
> Know your relative minor chords and you will be able to solo up and down the fret-board in the same key...
> NOW that's usefully shit to know.
> 
> G.


I was just pointing out the sharps and flats in keys. A lot of people have a hard time trying to figure that concept out when writing or reading music in different keys.

Of course the relative minor to major key is a very fundamental concept. I've been doing this for so long that sometimes I forget to go back to basics.

Sorry if I confused anybody with my initial post.....I suppose.


----------



## bluebayou

bw66 said:


> It is an F# and not an F because the 5th note in a B major scale is an F#. The circle continues around, and when you get to Bb, _then_ the next note will be an F.
> 
> 
> 
> The notes in a scale are always the same relative distance from the "root" note. If you sit down at a piano and play the white keys starting at C (the one immediately to left left of the group of two black keys) and playing up to the next C you will hear a major scale - the classic "doh-re-mi-fah-soh-lah-tee-doh". If you were to shift to the next white key and start on D and play the same "doh-re-mi..." by ear, you will find that there will be two black keys in the scale - these are F# and C#. So if you are playing in the key of D major, F and C will be sharp.
> 
> I hope that make sense.


thanks. The sharps and flats make sense to me now. Now it will be just a matter of practicing and using the circle - I hope!!


----------



## GTmaker

greco said:


> Could you please explain this statement. Thanks.



OK Dave...here is what I ment....
There is pure theory and then there is everything else....
Knowing pure theory is fine and I'm sure lots of folks who know it really do try to apply it.
This "pure theory" only goes so far and it does not replace talent or the ability to conceive great music.

Answer this question.... do you think that everyone whose has ever written a great song had a masters degree in music theory or even knew about the circle of fifths.? I'm sure some did ....but I would guess that the vast majority didn't.

So back to my point.... telling anyone that you must know your theory cause that the only way you will ever be creative and write something amazing is a false statement. The theory aspect helps explain what someone has created ...it does not do the creating.

G.


----------



## Dorian2

GTmaker said:


> OK Dave...here is what I ment....
> There is pure theory and then there is everything else....
> Knowing pure theory is fine and I'm sure lots of folks who know it really do try to apply it.
> This "pure theory" only goes so far and it does not replace talent or the ability to conceive great music.
> 
> Answer this question.... do you think that everyone whose has ever written a great song had a masters degree in music theory or even knew about the circle of fifths.? I'm sure some did ....but I would guess that the vast majority didn't.
> 
> So back to my point.... *telling anyone that you must know your theory cause that the only way you will ever be creative and write something amazing is a false statement. The theory aspect helps explain what someone has created ...it does not do the creating.*
> 
> G.


I have no clue how you took that out of my post at all. Totally not the intended idea behind it.


----------



## sambonee

GTmaker said:


> OK Dave...here is what I ment....
> There is pure theory and then there is everything else....
> Knowing pure theory is fine and I'm sure lots of folks who know it really do try to apply it.
> This "pure theory" only goes so far and it does not replace talent or the ability to conceive great music.
> 
> Answer this question.... do you think that everyone whose has ever written a great song had a masters degree in music theory or even knew about the circle of fifths.? I'm sure some did ....but I would guess that the vast majority didn't.
> 
> So back to my point.... telling anyone that you must know your theory cause that the only way you will ever be creative and write something amazing is a false statement. The theory aspect helps explain what someone has created ...it does not do the creating.
> 
> G.


I don't want to tackle this as I feel it's a bit demeaning to the beauty of musical physics. This circle of fifths is only a quantifiable explanation of the true musical fact. The musical facts that all keys relate to each other in a distant or close way. Example
It's easy to modulate from C to F or G but much harder to modulate to Ab ect....

All the greatest composers understood these concepts hence making them better players. 

I find that people who disregard musical theory end up with it as their Achilles heel.


----------



## GTmaker

Dorian2 said:


> I have no clue how you took that out of my post at all. Totally not the intended idea behind it.


..
actually ...that's a true statement ....I did infuse my own point...OH well

G.


----------



## Dorian2

That's all cool GTmaker. And the only reason I know theory is because I intended to get better. I totally started out learning everything by ear, and I apply very little theory to my actual playing. But it helps to know where I am when I want a certain feel or sound. Feel and expression is the main point of music, so I get where you're coming from.


----------



## greco

GTmaker said:


> So back to my point.... telling anyone that you must know your theory cause that the only way you will ever be creative and write something amazing is a false statement. The theory aspect helps explain what someone has created ...it does not do the creating.
> 
> G.


I don't remember ever hearing/reading anyone stating that _"you must know your theory cause that the only way you will ever be creative and write something amazing"_.

IMO, knowing music theory is a wonderful tool and extremely advantageous...similar to the advantages of knowing how to read, write and speak another language....especially when it is applied.


----------



## amagras

All roads lead to Rome, if you play only folkloric there's no need for theory apart from the few steps acquired by being exposed to the music of your ancestors but if you are pursuing a career as a composer, arranger or just plain musician you'll need theory for sure but keep in mind, all roads lead to Rome: It doesn't help much whether you improvise over C or Am because the only difference is where the scale starts and ends, the notes are the same and since the improviser doesn't follow a linear path it doesn't change much (except perhaps for the technical part). What makes a huge difference is to know what different scales you can play over a given chord, for example, you can improvise A Dorian scale over an Am chord but also you can use the minor pentatonic starting on B, E and A or just using the m7b5 arpeggio (knowing the relatives will help translate all this to the major key for example). Now, the circle of 5th or 4th (depending on the direction you take) won't help you understand this neither will help you learn it but it'll provide a solid base to PRACTICE it. Why? Because 5ths or 4th changes are a close representation of the cadences in most tunes and it challenge the student to make larger harmonic movements out of the standard whole tone and 3rds modulations. You can learn how to improvise taking theory, harmony and music classes and listening to your favourite players but apart from the practice point of view there's not that much need to learn the circle of 5ths because...
All roads lead to Rome!


----------



## bw66

Whenever someone tries to convince me of the irrelevance of music theory, my standard response is that no one ever became a worse communicator because they learned the "rules" of grammar. At it's absolute worst, knowing music theory does no harm. (There are those who will point to musicians who are "locked in" by theory, but I would argue that those people would be "locked in" with, or without, music theory.)

A friend of mine recently wrote an article about his conversion to studying technique and theory as an artist and musician:
http://issuu.com/uxbridgetowntalk/docs/sept2015_online/10 
(It's a clunky website - on my computer at least - but the article is on page 10.)

Conflict of interest declaration (and shameless plug):
I am the guitar teacher referenced in the 3rd last paragraph.


----------



## amagras

bw66 said:


> no one ever became a worse communicator because they learned the "rules" of grammar.


That's are absolutely right. We have to respect relevant musicians who doesn't know music, people who only take music as a hobby and people who love and play music but doesn't have time to learn properly but music theory is the language, the path to the artistic evolution and so much fun! Everybody with the right amount of help can learn enough to see good results. 

Ps. bw66, I'll find time to read your link


----------



## knight_yyz

bluebayou said:


> A person recommended that I learn the circle. Not an issue. BUT, in moving clockwise why after the B is the next F# and then C#. Why sharp rather than just plain F and C? Is there a specific reason why or is it one of those music things " that is just the way it is"?
> And in the scales in the different keys and modes why is a particular note sharp or flat?? Or is that a long, long, long explanation?
> I can find tons of info on the circle but not one that explains EVERYTHING and in detail.
> 
> thanks


This is called the Circle of Fifths because each note is a *perfect fifth away from another. A perfect fifth is the distance of 7 notes tones: A, A#, B, C, C#, D, D#, E.*


----------



## amagras

knight_yyz said:


> This is called the Circle of Fifths because each note is a *perfect fifth away from another. A perfect fifth is the distance of 7 notes tones: A, A#, B, C, C#, D, D#, E.*


That was probably the only post in the entire thread to give a straight answer to the OP!!  Thank you knight_yyz, I sometimes get lost in the forest as I write


----------



## Stratin2traynor

I am envious of those who know their music theory and can apply it. I would love to know that stuff. My technique is ok, my timing is good, but I keep having to remember someone else's lick or riffs. I can create some of my own but it would be freeing to hear a progression and be able to solo over it and know where I'm going and how to get there. Sadly I have no idea where to start with music theory and don't really have the time I would need to learn enough of it. 

I find these threads interesting though (aside from the arguments) and usually can take something away from them.


----------



## knight_yyz

I'm not studying it, it's just something I remember coming across. Over my head right now.


----------



## fredyfreeloader

Theory can be extremely boring or very fascinating and sometimes both at the same time. I have theory books that tell me all the thing that I didn't know that I didn't know. 
One book on chords, 40,000 chords for guitar, who could ever learn and retain all the formations in this book, not me, I still find this interesting. 

A surprise find, a theory book produced by Hall Leonard that had a better explanation of intervals and triads than any of the new music theory books. 

A country music book on scales and modes, very well written, who would have imagined that country pickers would even give a damn about what they were playing, again a very interesting book. 

I've learned not to judge music theory books by who may have written them but by what they can deliver in the way of easily understood material. I do not call a book with just songs to play with lyrics, chords and some melody a book on theory, to me that's just a song book, fun for some people to play if they have an idea what the song is, otherwise it's just a bunch of notes on a page.


----------



## bw66

fredyfreeloader said:


> ... One book on chords, 40,000 chords for guitar, who could ever learn and retain all the formations in this book, not me, I still find this interesting...


If you know your theory, you will never need to look up a chord again.



fredyfreeloader said:


> A country music book on scales and modes, very well written, who would have imagined that country pickers would even give a damn about what they were playing, again a very interesting book.


An interesting point...

Once you know your theory, then you have to learn the terminology that different people use. People from classical, jazz, and traditional (country, blues, folk, gospel) backgrounds will use different terms for the same thing.


----------



## greco

bw66 said:


> Once you know your theory, then you have to learn the terminology that different people use. People from classical, jazz, and traditional (country, blues, folk, gospel) backgrounds will use different terms for the same thing.


This is very interesting and totally new to me (seriously...not joking). 
Could you please give me a couple of examples.

Thanks

Dave


----------



## amagras

I was going to say the same about the country music book, that's something I'd like to read. I find difficult to follow some country cadences because they are not in my vocabulary, this is when jamming of course, in the studio we usually have time to analyze the harmonic movements beforehand.


----------



## bw66

greco said:


> This is very interesting and totally new to me (seriously...not joking).
> Could you please give me a couple of examples.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Dave


One easy example is that classical theory will talk about "triads" which anyone else would call "chords".

Some will refer to chord degrees as "root", "sub-dominant", or "dominant" where others would call them the "one", "four" or "five".


----------



## greco

bw66 said:


> One easy example is that classical theory will talk about "triads" which anyone else would call "chords".
> 
> Some will refer to chord degrees as "root", "sub-dominant", or "dominant" where others would call them the "one", "four" or "five".


Thanks for examples. 

Are the terms "triads" and "chords" always interchangeable? 
I thought there was a difference in some instances.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## fredyfreeloader

greco said:


> Thanks for examples.
> 
> Are the terms "triads" and "chords" always interchangeable?
> I thought there was a difference in some instances.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Dave


Triads are 3 note chords, no more no less, chords as some people see them are 4, 5, 6 notes, so the answer to your question would be no they are not always interchangeable. some people will even refer to intervals which are 2 notes as chords, intervals can be joined together and make the aforementioned larger chords. Intervals and triads combined will give you what you normally refer to as chords.


----------



## Merlin

fredyfreeloader said:


> Triads are 3 note chords, no more no less, chords as some people see them are 4, 5, 6 notes, so the answer to your question would be no they are not always interchangeable. some people will even refer to intervals which are 2 notes as chords, intervals can be joined together and make the aforementioned larger chords. Intervals and triads combined will give you what you normally refer to as chords.


Two notes are properly referred to as diads. The intro to Smoke On The Water is played with diads.


----------



## cbg1

https://youtu.be/CdxAKfu4MBI this was on my facebook feed this morning.....some info about using the circle in reverse (counter clockwise) to improvise......simple piano demonstration with two people......some interesting bits about lengths of progressions.

bw66's comment about terminology is spot on...........in the video she mentions dividing the bar into quadrants instead of playing in 4/4 or common time, a new one for me.


----------



## amagras

This one is very interesting, she is playing dominant7 chords around the Circle of Fifths and playing the correspondent scales. 

https://youtu.be/tqEDZxJB__g


----------



## Jim DaddyO

My theory is about a sketchy as my playing, but this I did figure out.

If you go clockwise, each note is a 5th from the previous one.
If you go counter clockwise, each note is a 4th from the previous one
If you want to know what chords are in a l, lV, V progression, find the key on the circle and it will have the lV and V on either side of it.

Not much, but it helps.


----------



## Dorian2

fredyfreeloader said:


> Triads are 3 note chords, no more no less, chords as some people see them are 4, 5, 6 notes, so the answer to your question would be no they are not always interchangeable. some people will even refer to intervals which are 2 notes as chords, intervals can be joined together and make the aforementioned larger chords. Intervals and triads combined will give you what you normally refer to as chords.



Yeah. diads like the 3 and 7 can also suggest a chord without actually playing one. Great points.


----------



## amagras

Dorian2 said:


> Yeah. diads like the 3 and 7 can also suggest a chord without actually playing one. Great points.


Yeah, specially the tritone major3rd/b7/major3rd that suggests the dominant 7 chord. 
Update, I just realized that we were talking about the same notes :$ burn me


----------



## fredyfreeloader

Merlin said:


> Two notes are properly referred to as diads. The intro to Smoke On The Water is played with diads.


Two notes plated one at a time form a melodic interval, two notes played simultaneously form a harmonic interval, frequently called a dyad (proper spelling), double stop or sometimes a couplet. The word Dyad is from the Greek word Dyas meaning the number two or couple. The term Diad has been accepted as an alternate spelling although not accepted as the correct spelling except maybe in what is called popular music.


----------



## babybatter

Rise! Rise from the dead old thread! muahahaha!

I have a question:

Why do I always see circle of fifths mnemonics start with F instead of C?

Instead of Father charles goes down and ends battle, shouldnt it be:

Major keys
Cant go down an empty boulevard for cannabis (all natural but the Cannabis is sharp!)
And of course the flats are
Cant feel bad emotions arise doing good cannabis (the feel here is natural but everything else is flat)

Minor keys
Always exit backwards from cars going down alleys (always exiting backwards is natural)
A dumb guy cant fall backwards exiting automobiles (backwards exiting = falling flat)

You can ridicule me when you are ready.


----------



## Mooh

babybatter said:


> Rise! Rise from the dead old thread! muahahaha!
> 
> I have a question:
> 
> Why do I always see circle of fifths mnemonics start with F instead of C?
> 
> Instead of Father charles goes down and ends battle, shouldnt it be:
> 
> Major keys
> Cant go down an empty boulevard for cannabis (all natural but the Cannabis is sharp!)
> And of course the flats are
> Cant feel bad emotions arise doing good cannabis (the feel here is natural but everything else is flat)
> 
> Minor keys
> Always exit backwards from cars going down alleys (always exiting backwards is natural)
> A dumb guy cant fall backwards exiting automobiles (backwards exiting = falling flat)
> 
> You can ridicule me when you are ready.


That mnemonic isn't for the circle of fifths and fourths, it's for the order of sharps and flats. C major has neither sharps nor flats.


----------



## babybatter

Mooh said:


> That mnemonic isn't for the circle of fifths and fourths, it's for the order of sharps and flats. C major has neither sharps nor flats.


The circle of fifths is the order of sharps.









Circle of fifths - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Mooh

@babybatter The circle of fifths is way more than just the order of sharps, but I was clearly addressing your mnemonic issue.

Also, the "Father Charles..." mnemonic is read one way for sharps and backwards for flats, your proposal does not.


----------



## babybatter

Mooh said:


> @babybatter The circle of fifths is way more than just the order of sharps, but I was clearly addressing your mnemonic issue.
> 
> Also, the "Father Charles..." mnemonic is read one way for sharps and backwards for flats, your proposal does not.


Why does it start with F?


----------



## Mooh

babybatter said:


> Why does it start with F?


F# is the single sharp in the key of G. 
F# and C# are the two sharps in the key of D.
F#, C#, and G# are the three sharps in the key of A.

Etc.


----------



## Mutant_Guitar

Can someone catch me up, what is the issue with the circle?


----------

