Actually I didn't necessarily consider that the musician was Jamacan, just that he was living in Jamaca. Which frankly, I'd consider to be a pretty cool way to go :)
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- HST
They could be F#, D, A, B. They could be Gb, Ebb, Bbb, Cb. You simply have no idea. They could be something else entirely. You have no idea without standard notation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's really no difference between a F# and a Gb, a D and an Ebb and so forth? There is of course a difference if you play an instrument without discrete tones, like a violin, but for a guitarplayer it's not.
Now, I know somehow, and in a way I hope, you'll correct me. I only see those weird notes as Ebb as an anomaly in a way. But if you can explain to me why there is a difference I will be happy. Then I would have learn something new about music today! Could it be something about tension? Like an Ebb strives towards something different than a D.
The enharmonic notes are physically the same note. But they have different roles in music.
A flat-7th is a sharp-6th for a major scale on a guitar from a sonic perspective. But what you call it says something about how you're using it.
In the example of the chord I just gave you .. not knowing what the notes you're playing ARE means that if you're sitting in with a band and the leader says "hey, mr. guitar guy, instead of just playing that chord, arpegiate 3,5,7,b11 for me ok?"
Since you have no idea what notes you're playing, you have no idea what the chord is, so you have no idea what the 3, 5, 7 and b11 are.
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- HST
it's not as if you couldn't figure it out from the context.
Kingpatzer, I'll dig deeper into this, because it's definitely interesting. But I think, as brothertupelo says, you can figure that out (what chord it is) from the context. And that band leader could easily tell you what chord it is.
By the way, the way I make music, I would not accept such passive members of the band that I had to tell them in which position they should play the chords, and I would not accept a band leader who told me exactly how to play. I think it's more interesting when musical ideas from different persons blend together in a democratic way.
Greybeard, there are tabs where you can see the length of the tones:
Tab with stems attached is better than tab with no stems, but that doesn't mean it indicates duration as precisely as standard notation.
Tab can't differentiate between a half note and a quarter note. Although I've seen efforts to do so (some Mel Bay books use circles around the numbers to indicate an open headed note), the results can become unwieldy, particularly when one or two notes of a chord are held and the others aren't.
Single line runs in bluegrass (like your example) can be tabbed more successfully for rhythm than pieces in other styles. Classical guitar uses two or more independent lines - the alternatives in tab are circles or extensive use of ties, either of which makes for a very cluttered result. Many other guitar styles, like ragtime, blues, etc. make use of held notes in one voice that tab isn't well suited for.
There's also more to rhythm than just the duration of the basic note value. Standard notation uses marks over or under the notes to indicate staccato, marcato, portato, sforzado, etc. I have never seen a tab system that attempted to capture these subtleties.
I see several limitation to playing only from tab:
1. There is a vast range of music that has never been tabbed for guitar. If you want Paganini's Caprice #24, you'll find a tab... because Malmsteen did it. If you want the Brahm's Paganini Variations, good luck. Using only tab forces you to play ONLY pieces that another guitarist has already done - you'll be an imitator, not an innovator. Oh, you could tab out the Brahms yourself... but you can play the entire piece from piano music before you could tab a couple dozen measures.
2. In my experience, guitarists who rely on tab neglect developing their ears. On a regular basis I have students bring tab for songs they want to learn - I then listen to the CD, and I show them where notes are missing, chords are incorrect, etc. We work on their ears to hear the things that are left out... guitarists who learn songs from tab on their own usually sacrifice that quality for quantity; in the time it takes to correct one transcription, they'll badly learn three or four tunes instead.
3. Using tab alone limits your understanding of the harmony of a song. When you deal with strictly the tone values, rather than the note names as standard notation does, you may not be naming chords correctly in context. The internet is full of chord notations for F#m chords in songs that are in flat keys, A# major chords (!) and the like. Although these are accurate enharmonic equivalents - there is no difference in sound - you won't be able to see a ii-V-I progression if you're calling the chords bbiii-#IV-I. In standard notation, you SEE the notes shared between chords, and the relationship is clear.
At the extreme, I have met 3-4 new guitarists who can PLAY songs, but they don't know the names of any chords at all. They have learned chord fingerings entirely from tabs.
I'm not saying you souldn't use tab. Tab is a legitimate notation system for reproducing music. In fact, tab systems have been around for a long time - about 600 years or so. Until the 'guitar explosion' of the 1960s, it wasn't used much, though - because it's instrument-specific. It allows you to play a transcribed piece ONLY on the instrument it was written for... much the same way that a paint-by-numbers kit will allow you to duplicate a piece of artwork, but ONLY in the canvas size that came in the kit.
I've known a couple people in my life who never learned to read, folks who immigrated as adults from countries where education was lacking. They still learned to speak English, find the right bus by matching up symbols from a piece of paper to the bus sign, etc. They function in the world of English and communicate their ideas, just as tab readers function and improvise in the world of music. Being able to cope is not the same as being able to read. Standard notation is the written language of music, and if you don't read it, you're functionally illiterate no matter how well you cope with that.
Guitar teacher offering lessons in Plainfield IL
I've got to agree with Noteboat. Tab has it's uses, (don't get me wrong, I'd be lost without it), but it also has limitations.
Standard notation is a mature and commonly acceptable method for transporting music. It can convey all the nuances necessary for that piece to be played as the composer wished it to be played.
Another thing that standard notation gives you is a strong image of the flow of the music. Tab doesn't give you that.
I started with nothing - and I've still got most of it left.
Did you know that the word "gullible" is not in any dictionary?
Greybeard's Pages
My Articles & Reviews on GN
Tab with stems attached is better than tab with no stems, but that doesn't mean it indicates duration as precisely as standard notation.
You definitely got a point there. That's a big problem. I don't know how I got in this position as a defender of the tabs, that was not my meaning. As I said before, I think standard notation is better than tabs if you take time to learn it.
I don't know, but when I read what you guys write in the posts, I get the feeling that you might even think it's more important to learn to write and read music, than to actually learn to listen and play music. I don't think you believe that, but you defend standard notation with such strong emphasis. For me are standard notation, tabulatures or whatever notation you use only representations of something much bigger than itself. You use tabs as an example of a limitating notation compared to standard notation, but there have been a lot of composers who have tried to break free from standard notation too. And I'm not so sure you can grasp Indian music with standard notation in a good way, for example.
What I want to say is still: You can be a good and soophisticated musician without knowing how to read and write music.
Music is about sound. Music in ensemble is about making sound with other musicians.
So... if you're a solo artist, nobody cares if you read or not. If you're in ensembles in highly improvisational settings (jazz, blues, etc.), maybe nobody cares. If you're in ensemble settings with prepared pieces (classical, standards, etc.) you need a way to play your part - and you need to be albe to play it the same way, every time. That usually means having it written down somehow.
If you can do that with tab, more power to ya. But like I said earlier, nobody has ever handed me tab for a gig... but lots of times I get handed standard notation.
Reading isn't a requirement for musicianship. Some folks make fine careers without reading. But you can say the same thing about nearly every aspect of music: some folks make fine careers without being able to improvise, or without having great technique, or without knowing anything about theory, or music history, or extended chords, or (insert your favorite here).
Does that mean I should aspire to having no technique, sticking with power chords, ignoring standard notation, and not improvising? I don't think so!
The music is central, and everything else is secondary. But if you're gonna start picking and choosing which secondary things to learn, you're limiting your options - learn them all.
Guitar teacher offering lessons in Plainfield IL
Actually, Noteboat, I tend to agree and disagree with what you said at the same time.
Music is the center of it all. But Musicianship, the practice, art and science of being a musician, should be what musicians aspire to IN ORDER that they might do service to the music.
Consider an analogy of a football player. The game of football is the whole point of being a football player. But being an athelete means you have to do certain things if you want to excel -- strength training, flexability training, speed training, practice drills, etc.
Sure you don't go into the weight room as a football player because that's the POINT. You go into the weight room because football's the point.
The same is true of music. You don't ear train because ear training is the point. You ear train because music is the point. You don't read music because standard notation is the point of musicianship. You read music because it's part of good musicianship and good musicianship is how you make great music.
Everyone will pull out their favorite counter-example here "well <insert name> didn't read music and look how great he is."
The same can be done in sports "Well, X never showed up in the weight room and he was great."
But in all honesty, who cares? Those people who do excel without putting in the long hours of work are the rare exceptions. Most of the people who make a living at this thing we call music have excellent musicianship. They read music; they drill site reading. They have a great ear; they do ear training. They have great technique; they play a million scales a day. And on and on and on.
So, yes, music is the point. Which is why practicing site reading, practicing technique, ear training, and all the other things you label secondary aren't "secondary" to me at all. They are what you do in order to make great music.
It's the necessary training for what it takes to be good, let alone great.
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- HST
9 guitars....soon to be 10...all of which have to be practised on regularly, especially bass...and a keyboard...and 3 blues harps....and recording....then there's eating, drinking and sleeping....rehearsing new songs, then I can play along with the guys in the pub....
I've been promising myself I'll learn to read music since I first picked up a guitar waaaaaaaay back in '74.....still haven't got round to it, I'd love to, but where do I find the time.....?
:) :) :)
Vic
"Sometimes the beauty of music can help us all find strength to deal with all the curves life can throw us." (D. Hodge.)
So... if you're a solo artist, nobody cares if you read or not. If you're in ensembles in highly improvisational settings (jazz, blues, etc.), maybe nobody cares. If you're in ensemble settings with prepared pieces (classical, standards, etc.) you need a way to play your part - and you need to be albe to play it the same way, every time. That usually means having it written down somehow.
Reading isn't a requirement for musicianship. Some folks make fine careers without reading. But you can say the same thing about nearly every aspect of music: some folks make fine careers without being able to improvise, or without having great technique, or without knowing anything about theory, or music history, or extended chords, or (insert your favorite here).
Word! I think you just said what I was trying to say all the time. In some environment (mine for example) you don't have to know how to read music, but in other places you really do.
Does that mean I should aspire to having no technique, sticking with power chords, ignoring standard notation, and not improvising? I don't think so!
No of course not! As you said, those things work for you and your kind of music. But then there are people who do great music nearly without any technique, only three chords and without a singing voice. I think it can be interesting to listen to people when they first pick up an instrument and start exploring it, at the same time I really like pieces like la campanella. Music can be so many things.
Consider an analogy of a football player. The game of football is the whole point of being a football player. But being an athelete means you have to do certain things if you want to excel -- strength training, flexability training, speed training, practice drills, etc.
Music is not a sport, you don't compete with others. Well, yes you do (especially as a professional), but ... well, I guess you understand my point. To win is not, I hope, the goal.
Music is the center of it all. But Musicianship, the practice, art and science of being a musician, should be what musicians aspire to IN ORDER that they might do service to the music.
My old teacher of photography, who also was a flamenco guitarist, once told me: "Acquire all technique you need to develop your expression". That's an advice I've taken to my heart. Some don't need that much technique, while others need a lot.
I feel I need to develop better technique and theoretical knowledge in order to become the kind of musician I want to be, so probably I'll take your advice to learn to read and write music. I know it fairly well today but I'm not "fluent", yet.
I want a book that can learn me to read and write music (at a fairly high level, there's so many that start from the beginning, I don't want them) at the same time as it explain musical theory. Right now I mostly interested in cadence and using more jazz-flavored chords. Does anyone know any book for me?
It occurs to me that guitarists who can play from standard notation probably have to be a little longer on theory than, say, keyboard players or wind players or brass players or, well, most anybody.
I mean, anybody who's only playing one note at a time is just reading a line of single notes; and the music staff is in a lot of ways a rough analogue to a piano keyboard. In fact, with some slight modification a standard notation staff could almost function as a piano roll.
Guitarists are off on an odd sidestreet of the music notation universe, though. They're playing chords but on an instrument that staff notation is in no way even vaguely analoguous to. Reading standard notation for guitar, as I understand it from what I've read in this thread and what I intuit, is a process of looking at a group of notes, translating it in your head into a chord name, picking from your personal repertoir of know chord shapes what seems to be the most useful choice and then putting your fingers there.
Sight reading for piano is a cakewalk by comparison. Once you know what key you're in and get that scale under your fingers you just put your fingers in the shape of the notes; "Look, see, three notes all one space apart and the bottom one is "E". Accidental sharps and flats tell you to move a finger one key left or right.
Other than the guitar no instrument comes to mind for which there exists an instrument specific alternate system of notation. This points to the fact that no matter how important it may be for guitarists working as professional musicians to be able to read standard notation, standard notation is akward and cumbersome for guitar usage.
It's doesn't seem terribly surprising that standard notation doesn't accommodate the guitar terribly well. Historically doesn't guitar music essentially exist on a parellel sidestream to the rest of western music? I just looked in my copy of Grout's "History of Western Music" and "Guitar" isn't even in the index. He mentions the Lute a few times in the early chapters and then it's like the piano was invented and poof, the guitar vanished from the face of the earth. Until the mid 20th century when electric amplification appeared on the scene wasn't the guitar essentially useless for anything besides folk music and the occasional lute accompanied madrigal? Too obtuse in it's functional layout to bother with given that it wasn't loud enough to compete with an orchestra, wasn't the guitar relegated to being, by and large, essentially an instrument for accompanying chamber music or campfire singing? Standard notation doesn't really accommodate the guitar because it never really needed to.
For notation to read fast and easy it needs to be intuitive; I'm no expert but man, I can't imagine how you could make standard notation less intuitive for the guitar. By contrast, I started playing seven and a half months ago and I could read tab the first time I looked at it. Playing from Tab I can play some cool songs; playing from standard notation I'd still be trying to figure out "Home on the Range". Playing guitar from staff notation seems like, well, trying to play piano from guitar tab.
My point here isn't that guitarists shouldn't try to get a grasp of standard notation. But though staff notation may be the "universal language of music" I think it's legitimate to factor into the equation that the guitar really hasn't always been a part of that universe.
Music is not a sport, you don't compete with others. Well, yes you do (especially as a professional), but ... well, I guess you understand my point. To win is not, I hope, the goal.
I didn't say you needed those things to "win." I said you needed them to excel. I used the analogy of a sport because that is an arena where people engage in the activity for the love of the activity itself, yet quickly find that to get good, to excel, they have to spend time on doing something besides the activity itself.
Guitarists are off on an odd sidestreet of the music notation universe, though. They're playing chords but on an instrument that staff notation is in no way even vaguely analoguous to.
Not at all. If you think that's true then I'd suggest that you simply don't understand the relationship between the instrument and the staff. One exists.
This points to the fact that no matter how important it may be for guitarists working as professional musicians to be able to read standard notation, standard notation is akward and cumbersome for guitar usage.
The alternative explaination is that it points to a very popular instrument played by a large number of fairly unskilled musicians for whom a simplified, but largely inadequate, alternate notation arose.
It's doesn't seem terribly surprising that standard notation doesn't accommodate the guitar terribly well.
I keep hearing people make this claim. Oddly, the people all making the claim are precisely the people who aren't able to sight read particularly well. Those that have put in the effort to learn to read music don't seem to be making this claim. Does that suggest anything?
Until the mid 20th century when electric amplification appeared on the scene wasn't the guitar essentially useless for anything besides folk music and the occasional lute accompanied madrigal?
Yeah, all those jazz bands with guitar players playing unamplified prior to Charlie Christian are mere figments of fancy.
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- HST
I didn't say you needed those things to "win." I said you needed them to excel. I used the analogy of a sport because that is an arena where people engage in the activity for the love of the activity itself, yet quickly find that to get good, to excel, they have to spend time on doing something besides the activity itself.
I understand what you mean, but you don't have to be the equivalence of an athlete to be a good musician. Therefore I don't like your analogy. And to excell is not the meaning of music anyway neither. Do i sense a snobbish attitude from you? =)
The alternative explaination is that it points to a very popular instrument played by a large number of fairly unskilled musicians for whom a simplified, but largely inadequate, alternate notation arose.
Bah! I guess it's about class. People belonging to the upper classes learned to read music, since it's an invention coming from monks and priests, who also educated people in the upper classes. People in the lower classes didn't get that education. It has nothing to do with how skilled you are. Standard notation is good for some sort of music, but not that important for other types. I feel like I'm repeating myself, but you don't have to be able to write and read music to be a good musician.
By the way, standard notation is useless in many ways for electronic music and highly inadequate. There are so many aspects that you can't show with it that's important in that kind of music, like how things sound or the way reverbs, delays and other effects work.
