-
My point is calling tab notation unambiguous implies a stance that there is one particular unambiguous way to play everything on guitar. In fact, even people who provide music in tab notation aren't necessary trying to communicate that the particular written form is the one ideal way to instantiate that music on guitar. It's just the nature of the tab notation that they have to make specific choices. In most cases, they are sacrificing the generality of the musical idea unintentionaly.
Originally Posted by James W
Suppose you are checking out a Charlie Parker lick on guitar. There are many ways and fingerings to play Charlie Parker ideas on guitar. If it's written in tab, you're just getting one possible fingering. Calling this unambiguous as a some sort of advantage of the tab notation, in my opinion, fails to appreciate the fact that the idea couldn't possibly be represented in a more general way in that notation style which is often a limitation, not a feature.Last edited by Tal_175; 03-20-2023 at 05:17 PM.
-
03-20-2023 04:52 PM
-
Well, from the perspective of a piano picker who is trying to learn guitar "the right way" (not that my shameless aping of Jimmy Page, Clapton, Albert King in as a young teenager was wrong), I find a number of things interesting to me about tab.
First, of course, I can find the frets. Still learning to pick out where every note lies on the fretboard.
But, from there, I see the patterns and the old "boxes" come back to memory from however many years ago.
Long story short, and this is probably too short an explanation, maybe cryptic or gnomic or something, when I see various chord voicings spelled out in tab, it gives me a more visceral sense of how "fluid," I suppose, the naming of various chords can be, in a music-theoretic sense.
A good example is in Steve Khan's std-notation only volume of Wes transcriptions. Many times I disagree with how he analyzes a chord (is it an Fm9? A Bb13? or whatever), but by the emphasis on patterns revealed in tab, it opens up a few different options for thinking about the music.
On something like a keyboard, it's pretty easy to get down to brass tacks, you know? Even if you don't choose to, at any given moment you could just plunk down a bass note or flip some inner voices around.
I'm starting to think there's a floating, almost ambiguous quality to the way chord shapes on guitar can be interpreted, which, of course, always come back to "does it sound good," but it butts up against what's possible or comfortable on the fretboard.
At the stage I'm at, I'm constantly going back and forth between notating in standard and in tab.
Pat Martino's *Linear Expressions* really has been helping me to learn to read std notation at the fretboard, but what's been most inspiring has been to see just how economical slight shifts at the fingers can transform what could be spelled as a gnarly +5b9#9 chord or something into a pretty pedestrian harmony, with very similar fingering.
And Randy Vincent's *Three Note Voicings*, particularly his chapter on slash chords, clears a bunch up in that regard, conceptually, since in bands I was always like "dammit, why don't you just call it a G7sus4?"
So, for me, the tab (i.e., seeing the position and frets) gets me closer to what I imagine the guitarist really experiences, in terms of music. Could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time, but I think it's a good tool.
-
No, you appear to have missed my point by some margin. It was tablature I called unambiguous. Originally Posted by Tal_175
My point is that often in particularly technical styles of guitar playing it is often really important how things are laid out on the fretboard and that tab can quite effectively communicate this. That's all.
-
I meant to say tab notation. It was a typo, just corrected it. Originally Posted by James W
-
Ok, but it still doesn't make sense. 'My point is calling tab notation unambiguous implies a stance that there is one particular unambiguous way to play everything on guitar.' - calling tab unambiguous implies the existence of other, ambiguous means of communicating how to play something, otherwise it would not make sense to call it unambiguous would it? Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
The second paragraph of my post attempts to further clarify why I find the term "ambiguous" a mischaracterization of the staff notation. Originally Posted by James W
In my experience, it is very, very rare that the specific fingering is required. In every other case, the standard notation communicates music in a superior way than the tab notation, IMO.
Let me ask you this as I am curious. You said:
If you prefer to read music (by that I assume you mean the staff notation) and agree that fingering information when needed can be specified on staff, what makes tab beneficial to you? Originally Posted by James W
-
I think there’s a lot of truth to that. This is something that I think is key to the theory/no theory debate. Essentially there is no gap between the piano and notation … but on the guitar you can start with ear and grips, and it works. Ear for melodies, grips for chords. In fact to a large degree it’s how a lot of the classic jazz players plied their trade, irrespective of whether they could read dots etc. Originally Posted by jackalGreen
I don’t think tab is the way this was done historically, I don’t see why one shouldn’t use it for this purpose. Chord boxes were more standard afaik. I have an old book on Django that goes through this convoluted system of number picture chords to explain lines. It’s clear that the simpler idea of using tab didn’t occur to the author. In the community, guitarists often learned by watching each others hands and using their ears, which I suppose is also true of piano (how Barry Harris learned apparently.)
Jazz is a pianists world really.
Anyway for myself I know how I see the neck haha, I don’t need pictures to tell me that at this stage…
-
Yeah. I mean, lots of piano pickers can read fly shit off a page, but there's grips for them too: back in the old days they called them Griffe IIRC, and that's you wouldn't wan't to know how I visualize W-H diminished scales at the keyboard. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
The thing I dig about guitar is just working out rootless voicings, then after the fact seeing how many different ways they can fit. Check out the chords on Wes's "Airegin," at trading fours at the end. Classic voicings. For keys, maybe a band with horns, whatever.
Small secret from a neophyte? I can't get a lot of those big chords, like a #9 with the root, so, I say eff it, and just get the quality. Talking to you, "Four On Six."
So, that's maybe best of both worlds: if one's fret hand isn't so adept, just look at the standard notation (or one's ears) and judiciously drop a string/voice when appropriate.
That's my method, anyway, but I'm not doing chord-melody stuff on guitar. I want to burn it and turn it, with good rootless comping.
-
Originally Posted by blackcat
We must also consider the degree of frowning. I suggest we design a scale of frowns, showing various intensities of frowning, and ask reading members of the jazz guitar community to indicate how deep is their frown when the subject of tab is raised.
-
:-| Originally Posted by Litterick
:-(
:-<
-
If you were to ask me, I would say that for Jazz, it's a very good idea to learn to read lead sheets. It will really help you pick up the melodies a lot faster. Plus, it could make someone more likely to hire you for a gig, if they know you can read.
On the other hand, the Stats show that a sizeable majority of people making a living as musicians can't read music. So, for most musician's that leaves learning by ear or TABS as the only other likely options.
-
I think the ears are the #1 thing. Reading is much less used for things like session work these days - it's more important to be able to have a good stylistic ear, arrange good guitar parts and learn songs quickly.
AFAIK even for theatre work its generally the case that rhythm section will get the music in advance. Obviously reading is important for this, sight reading, less so.
I think there's still niche for a good sight reading guitarist though. Those guys are never out of work.
-
I gather from other forums that many rock guitarists simply learn songs, by ear or by tab. They only become aware of their limitations when they try to learn to play more complex music.
-
There's also the altered frown, which is the same as the melancholy frown, but sneering one tooth to the right, Originally Posted by Litterick
-
If you want to know how another guitarist played something, tab is sometimes easier than standard notation with little circled and uncircled numbers for string and finger. But, even in those cases, I prefer to see both, not just tab.
If it's a Charlie Parker solo, I'd wouldn't likely look at tab even if it was available.
For a rock guitar part, I'd probably be very interested in the tab, particularly if it shows how to get the exact sound.
Nobody responded to my earlier comment about the Rolling Stones lick on This Could Be The Last Time. But I think it's very unlikely somebody would figure out how Brian Jones played it from standard notation -- and I don't think you can get the exact sound with any other approach.
-
I agree on learning to read lead sheets. Originally Posted by James Haze
I can see that tab might be useful for various speed exercises. But in general, it is way less useful than reading.
Isn't the joy of music playing songs? Isn't it more interesting to have a vast repetoire of songs one can play? Don't most jazz musicians want to be capable of playing a large collection of songs as part of a band, whether it be as small as a 3 piece combo up to a large group? I have literally thousands of lead sheets in my fake and real books, as well as thousands more in piano/guitar/vocal songbooks. These don't have tab so tab so they are useless for tab players. Having to play using tab severely reduces the number of songs you could play.
I also like to be able to play other styles of music like latin, and again, relying on tab won't work because there is no tab.
As someone else said, not being able to read renders hundreds of years of music literature in the form of theory books, orchestration books, composition books and songbooks completely useless.
Tab also doesn't seem that useful for chord melody, if one just has a tab of the head, because the tab will generally be an octave lower than the required note in the chord melody. It is very easy to come up with chord melodies from lead sheets if one can read, but it seems much more difficult from tab alone.
Also, if one is comping behind a singer, it seems one would want to know the actual notes being sung so that if one is using chord substitutions, they don't run into a conflict with the singer.
Also, as someone else said, the tab is generally listed below the notes, and the tab does not indicate the rhythm to be played. So one has to look at the tab line for the fret, and the note line for the rhythm. Too complicated.
Also, if you write music, it seems one would want to write actual notes.
Also, if you are analyzing someone else's solo, you want to be able to know what the actual notes they are playing against the various chords.
I am surprised that most professional musicians cannot read. Pretty sad. One doesn't have to be a great reader, but knowing a small amount isn't that difficult.
Tab will certainly make it easier to learn someone else's solo, and therefore, be able to replicate it. But why would a jazz musician want to replicate someones solo?
-
In the corner of the musical world in which I reside, reading standard notation -- well -- is required for just about everything.
This is big band, obviously reading arrangements, including piano charts.
Small groups all involve reading charts.
I sub in both big band and small groups, which requires reading things I've never seen or maybe had a few minutes to look over.
Occasionally, there will be a gig or a jam where I might know all the tunes, although I wouldn't leave IRealPro in the car. And, those sessions don't happen much. In my recent experience even bands that play standards tend to have arrangements to read, not just, "let's play and see what happens", although that may be included after you've read the head.
Do you have to read? Ask Paul McCartney. What a profound talent with an incomprehensible level of achievement! But, he wouldn't be able to handle a big band situation where a number is called, you have never seen or heard the tune, and you barely have time to put it on the stand before the count-in.
So, take your pick. McCartney or anonymous big band guy? <g>
-
Or my good friend Chris Newman - played with Stephane Graphelli when he was 18, tours extensively - Australia and the States scores of times, teaches at Steve Kaufmann's summer camps each year, plays folk, swing jazz and much more. Chris has at least one textbook and numerous CDs to his name and has just completed a superb CD of Bach partitas. Doesn't read a note. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
-
There’s stories about Glenn Campbell playing orchestral sessions by ear
but yeah the thing is good ears don’t just happen by accident. That’s the number one thing. Relying on tabs doesn’t help with that as far as I can see. It’s like riding an electric bike and expecting to become fitter.
-
On the one hand, I can appreciate what you are saying Christian. On the other, methinks everyone doeth protesteth (far) too much! Whoever thought such a topic had such mileage/kilometrage in it. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
David
-
well FWIW Randy Vincent sums it up in the foreword to his Guitarist’s Introduction to Jazz. Simple and to the point Originally Posted by blackcat
Otoh I actually think fretboard diagrams are a better shout than tab for illustrating chord forms and scales. You can indicate fingerings and intervals and so on, which you can’t do in tab. They also more immediately visual. Tab also implies an ordering for notes which are distracting for mapping out scales and intervals on the fretboard.
the book is great btw.
-
IMO, you really should learn how to read notation. Once you get it, you'll be happy that you did learn it. I would say, don't let learning it get in the way of your development as a player, though. Starting from scratch, it's going to be a process, it just takes time to get all the information stored in your brain. We are not computers that can learn things instantly. At least 15 to 20 minutes of intelligently working on it every day for a year, though, and you should be becoming reasonable at it. Certainly not sight reader level yet, but just keep at it like that and the progress will come.
Just like with anything, the 'ol noggin requires repetition in order to get it into your muscle memory. It's a two-step process, in a way. It's not only learning to recognize the note and the pitch of that note analytically, like a math equation. You can actually learn that part fairly quickly, with reps. But you also have to do enough reps beyond that to learn it in your muscle memory, so your fingers go exactly where you want them to go when you read the notes. That's an additional and necessary step that will also take time to become fluent with, even more time than the analytical part.
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
He had to add fingering numbers, string numbers and fingerboard diagrams to the stave, in order to teach the reader. At least he stopped before adding photographs of awkward hand positions. Notation has its limitations.[/QUOTE]
-
I don't think it's all that difficult to learn to read standard notation.
At least, not difficult to get to the point where you can decode a chart. Reading a complex arrangement sight-unseen is harder.
I learned years ago with a Belwin beginner book, Mel Bay 2 and Rhythms Complete by Bower and Colin. 6 months.
-
What's the job, and what tool will do it?
If the job is to reproduce a particular guitar composition, particularly in the folk traditions where guitaristic effects can dominate, tab addresses the where-do-my-fingers-go questions unambiguously. So if you want to play Merle Travis or John Hurt or Gabby Pahinui idiomatically, a page of tab is a record of where to put the fingers. Even matters of phrasing/note value are addressable by adding tails to the numbers. (I have tab books that do so.) Add chord/grip diagrams above the staff and you have a decent visual rendering of the music. (Ears are an enormous help as well.)
If the job is to get around on a new piece of music that is instrument-agnostic--especially if performance decisions and options are not already set--then a standard-notation chart is the appropriate tool.
I can guarantee the schooled players here that most of the folk-rooted players of my long acquaintance do not learn new material via standard notation--in fact, most do not read, or have very basic reading skills left over from early piano or school-band lessons. Folkies learn by ear and eyeball observation, often supplemented by tabbed-out arrangements for set pieces. And the folk process being what it is, that generates an interesting variety of ways of executing, say, Doc Watson's version of "Deep River Blues" or Davy Graham's "Anji."
I do not doubt that I would make faster progress in sitting in with my bop-leaning friends if I could read notation. But I don't, and at 78 I'm not going to try (again). Instead, I'll use my very decent ears and musical memory and my Real Book and transposable iGigbook charts (I can't read the lead guitarist's hands from where I sit) and be content to fit in where I can without stinking the joint up.
FWIW, my ideal tool would be a transposing e-chart with chord frames I have customized, laid out four bars to the line, big enough for a trifocals wearer to read without craning forward.
If style is limitations, I've got buckets of the stuff.Last edited by RLetson; 03-23-2023 at 04:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
Couple of entry level arch tops
Today, 01:28 PM in For Sale