-
Nice, I'll check it out
Originally Posted by grahambop
-
01-03-2023 07:58 AM
-
No, I'm not familiar with them. Like I said, I've got tons of this stuff and it's pretty rare that I buy another collection, because usually there are only one or two songs that I don't already have. I also have a reasonably good knowledge of music theory in general and harmony in particular and already know how to alter chords. But thanks anyway for the reference. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Every so often I hear a song and think "Wow, that's great! I've got to have that!". Sometimes I've had the sheet music for decades and never paid any attention to it or sometimes I'll find it somewhere and buy it and sometimes it's not to be found anywhere. It doesn't really matter, I can figure out songs by ear, anyway. I just like to have the sheet music. Sometimes there are slight differences.
-
I assume you realize both are included. But yes TAB is annoying. I'm having Mick Goodrick's 36 Solo pieces reset for second printing and that's the pressure from publishers (What harm can it do and it'll get you wider sales) but Mick was adamant. NO TAB. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
And then the flood of inquiries that follow..."Does anybody have this piece in TAB?"
Ha ha. The secret to the Almanac's extraordinarily limited use-no way to read it. LOL.
-
I know these are all penned by artists that Joel knows personally and/or have performed with him or at events organized by him. I gave him the Mick Goodrick piece because Mick wanted him to have it and he was too sick to handle it himself. All others are all familiar names in Joel's circles, many whom have taught in the aforementioned summer weeklong workshop/masterclasses he organized each year. They're first edition versions. Originally Posted by oldHaus
-
Originally Posted by grahambop
All women; a welcome change. Terri Lyne Carrington is a force for good.
-
She ain't no Senri Kawaguchi. Originally Posted by Litterick
-
Thank you for jumping in! For me, thinking and discussing any work is more vital when the person who produced it is in the conversation. Originally Posted by Joel Harrison
-
Thank you for not taking my comments personally. I wasn't complaining, I was criticizing. I didn't buy the book and I wouldn't have, without looking at the table of contents. I don't have any reason to complain. Originally Posted by Joel Harrison
Even if it was your title, the publisher would be responsible.
Tab is very useful for people who can't read standard notation. If you include tab in your books, you are performing a service to them. Some people have some kind of block against learning to read music or simply can't do it and some don't want to. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with tab and I would encourage any publisher to include it, even though I don't need it and never use it.By the way, tab is not my favorite. But the publishers hope to speak to the greatest number of players possible. Please indulge. Thank you for checking this out and best wishes to all players!
-
If you do not like the tabs, you can transpose them to notation. This task is excellent training. The tools you will need are a pen and music paper.
-
Standard notation IS the primary notational system of this book. The TAB notation is merely a supplement Originally Posted by Litterick
(this is a clipped portion of one of the actual pages) But yes, if the presence of the TAB graphics is distracting, I suppose one could copy the notes onto a blank manuscript paper. The music is there in both forms. One could study, learn and perform the pieces from a multiplicity of knowledge bases.
-
yrah I know it’s silly but I can’t work with it. Also increases the number of page turns. Originally Posted by Jimmy blue note
Standard notation IS the primary notational system of this book. The TAB notation is merely a supplement
(this is a clipped portion of one of the actual pages) But yes, if the presence of the TAB graphics is distracting, I suppose one could copy the notes onto a blank manuscript paper. The music is there in both forms. One could study, learn and perform the pieces from a multiplicity of knowledge bases.
The reality of the situation is lots of amateur players rely on tab and this in theory increases access. But it’s a bit of deal breaker for me I’m afraid. I’ll find charts to read and study from other sources. But that’s just me and my specific needs/desires.
-
I’ll sound like a grumpy old man, but people should bloody well learn to read music. Bah! Originally Posted by Jimmy blue note
Doing transcribed tabs for my channel is a pain in the arse as well. I can’t remember what fingerings I play things anyway if it’s improvised. Ah well, c’est Le vie. Could be shovelling shit for a living.
-
I certainly respect your point of view, but isn't the end goal the internalization of the music and achieving "off book" status? I know that's what it is for me, and once I know a piece, the paper has served its purpose. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
It would be nice if there existed a standard notation book of these pieces but the existence of such a rich and diverse compendium is the real treasure of this book, whether they're called standards, whether you'll learn them all, whether some strange glyphs crowd the page, or whether you don't consider all of the contributors worthy of your time. Can't please many...
Kinda cool that someone has taken these contemporary voices seriously and made the effort to bring them to greater light.
But it is our prerogative to find the music in the ways we find appealing. Judge the book by its cover, but the music will be there when you need it. It is one of the better sources for the modern sound.
-
That's one possible goal. I haven't memorized anything in decades. I wasn't bad at it, I just don't like doing it and I like it less with increasing age. When I play by ear, I don't need to have memorized a piece. Originally Posted by Jimmy blue note
Another possible goal is to get good at sight reading (prima vista). For a few years, I had access to a piano but I only played 1 to 4 times a week. In that situation, I concentrated on sight reading and you can get through an amazing amount of repertoire by doing that. I've played many piano pieces once through. The ones I liked, I played again, or repeated at other times later, but mostly it was just once, make a check mark and put aside for future reference. I put asterisks on the ones I liked and double asterisks on the ones I really liked.
Another possible goal is to learn to read scores. I can't sight sing at all, but a long time ago, I discovered I was able to read a score (in this case, a piano arrangement), and "hear" the music in my head. With practice, I got better and better at it. I don't think it's a special talent, I think most people could learn to do it. Later, I started doing this with actual orchestral scores and scores for chamber music. There is a significant complication with scores, namely the parts for transposing instruments. Believe me, it's not easy. But it is rewarding and you eventually get it. I find reading a score much more rewarding than trying to follow a score along with a recording or a performance. You can take as much time as you need and you can read every part.
One more thing is to learn to read the "old" clefs, i.e., the C-clefs: soprano, alto, tenor and baritone. Alto is still used for viola and alto trombone and tenor is still used for cello and tenor (and possibly bass) trombone. The others have disappeared. There's also a second G-clef, namely the French violin clef. For the C-clefs, there's a collection of chorale settings by Bach that's still in print and used for this purpose.
There are probably lots of other things people could do involving reading music, but these are the ones that occur to me off the top of my head.
-
I'm focussing a lot on my reading and 'quick study' atm, so the page turning thing is an issue for that. Also even though I'm actually crap at reading tab, if you put tab in front of me, my eyes will go to that. So that makes it bad for this specific purpose. Originally Posted by Jimmy blue note
I'd also need to have at minimum a lead sheet if I wanted to perform any of them with other musicians on a gig, so no tab and as few page turns as possible, thank you. So this again lessens it's usefulness to me sadly.
In terms of learning and performing the tunes - tbh, I would learn a contemporary tune most likely because I felt drawn to it. Very often someone's had a go on scribd even if there's not a pro or composer's chart, and these can be useful provided you take them with a grain of salt. You can expect every jazz guitar geek at music school to have had a pop at Kurt tunes for instance.
In terms of copying out the music into another part - tbh I'd rather spend the time transcribing them myself and then checking with whatever sources are available; or practicing my reading on whatever charts I can find. The book is certainly an option for this type of thing and no doubt some of these tunes will be hard to find in print elsewhere.
A lot of what I do with material like this is less 'learn to perform' and more 'puzzle out and digest'. I tend to write stuff rather than cover contemporary compositions. Not sure why, it's just how it seems to go.Last edited by Christian Miller; 01-03-2023 at 06:45 PM.
-
This reminds me of my great aunt who whines incessantly about how kids today are not learning how to write in cursive, as if that is something worth teaching anyone anymore. (But how will they sign their names!!!??? As if it is against the law to sign in anything other than cursive.) You want to learn to read music? Goody for you. You don't? That's okay as well. And if you don't want to put tab in your books? You lose sales. Period. That decision is between you and your god (read as: "music publisher"). Obviously it is impossible to simultaneously please the people who:
1. Only want tab
2. Only want notation
3. Want both
I can read both. And I can read bass clef as well. (Oh boy!) I don't buy guitar books that don't have tab because it shows how incredibly lazy the author is and I don't trust their transcriptions. So yes, there are a variety of opinions on the subject. But obviously the best choice for the widest possible audience (especially with each passing year that your book is still in print) is to include both.
Best of luck with the book.
-
I stopped writing cursive for awhile and only printed. I started again because it is much more strenuous to print than to write cursive. However, I don't think that kids should necessarily have to learn it. I believe we learned it in second or third grade. Maybe fourth? I don't know, but I remember a lot of time being devoted to it and a big issue being made of it. I think all that time and probably tears for some kids could be put to better use. Originally Posted by seanmo
I taught myself shorthand a couple of years ago but I never got fast at it and two days later, I couldn't decipher what I'd written. It might have been the system. My brother learned a different one and has been using it for quite awhile now.
-
I agree with all of that. Originally Posted by seanmo
There’s a bit of a grey area between ‘jazz composition’ and ‘guitar material’ here. I tend to lean towards the former but there’s no doubt some guitarist composers really write from the instrument and in this case there’s an argument for tabs. In any case tab’s been around for hundreds of years. I don’t have a particular problem with it, it’s a tool.
However from a practical point of view I don’t want it on my jazz charts and I would be surprised if I was the only one who felt this way… but what you gonna do?
the author had to make some decisions regarding the format and I respect this decision and wish him well with the book. (I make similar calls with my content.) Not a big deal.
I can think of technological solutions to this dilemma but the truth is still like reading from a paper copy and I daresay others are the same.
I don’t want to get into it with the notation debate but I do think people should be encouraged to learn to read music; jazz has the specific issue of being a non-guitar focussed music. Tab is poorly suited imo for the purpose of communicating musical ideas and concepts relevant to jazz.
Maybe reading is less important in the rock and country world, say… it’s tricky. Jazz can be gatekeepery enough without erected barriers of notational facility, and several notable players didn’t have these skills. In terms of what I can affect, as an educator I do try to find ways to flatten the difficulty curves and make things less intimidating for adults, which I teach my child students to read to a basic level; that way hopefully staff notation will never be alien at least.
-
Some general thoughts from an amateur:
The songs I know in that book are good tunes that could deserve a wider use and proliferation. if the book help make them a part of the repertoire, then I'm all for it. I don't really care whether they qualify as standards or not at the moment - it's a fuzzy term anyway, and some of them well deserve to become standards.
Tab - it's a learning tool. I'm in non-musical education, and there is something to be said for a multitude of approaches and aids to a given subject. It's not good if people never learn notation, but tab has its place.
I do wish the book also had standard style lead sheets. I have a copy of the old Scofield Time On My Hands book which has both the tab and separate lead sheets. The latter are invaluable whenever you want to play a tune in a group.
-
I am pretty sure this is another of those threads that explain "why jazz is dying"!
Just get out there and play music with whatever tools and methods allow you to be part of a cohesive whole with your fellow musicians or even part of the antiphony that makes their music whole.
The first question I had with this particular topic was "are we talking about ""modern jazz" standards" or ""modern "jazz standards"" and if you can't get that figured out then I don't know where you go from there.
I am an appalling "guitarist" - name any tune you want and I probably cannot play it! But; for over fifty years I have been able to produce sounds from a guitar that are consonant with what other people are playing and so I can contribute to a whole that I cannot even conceive on my own musical basis.
As I often say "I could be a star if only I could find a backing group that plays as well and consistently as the one that exists only in my mind" those guys can anticipate any change I may make - but I have yet to be able to record them in full swing. One day maybe when we can record and analyze brainwaves; but then they will probably show me up for the musical fraud that I am am!
Unfortunately we seem to have moved from the age of "entitlement" to the age of "engruntalment"
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Why yes: rock players use tab to help them imitate the sounds made on recordings. They have the recording as a reference, so more information on the tab would be superfluous. Learning to read would be of little use for a rock player, since ideas are usually communicated by example or with a recording. Lennon and McCartney would show the other Beatles what to play. Pete Townshend made recordings of the instrumental parts of his new songs, to show the members of the Who what they needed to play or sing.
Rock recordings transcribed as notation often must include novel symbols to convey sounds that can be heard on recordings but which notation cannot convey: pull-offs, hammer-ons, fuzz, reverb, etc.
-
Originally Posted by Litterick
tbf there was a lot of that in jazz too. Mingus used to sing parts to his band and would rather do that than give them a chart. Barry worked in a similar way when teaching.
unless you are a session player of course. But in this world you are often expected to learn music in the same way; from my limited experience in this world composed scores are unsurprisingly not common in popular music compared to 50 years ago. session players are expected to draw in their stylistic knowledge to make up parts more often than read something an arranger has specified for them… more so in theatre work, perhaps film scores. Ears are the greatest asset a player can possess, as well improvisational a stylistic knowledge for sure.
I wonder if the Beatles ever used tab? Now I’m interested in the history of tabs use in pop music… another rabbit hole lol. Watching Get Back suggests it was all aural and there wasn’t much written musical material in terms of chord charts or tabs, and I assume this is way everyone learned back then as materials on ‘how to rock guitar’ were pretty thin on the ground. get Back also clearly demonstrates that with the Beatles we are also talking about musicians with a knowledge of hundreds of popular songs and standards too, and good ears from learning these the aural way.
I’ve never seen tabs used in a professional music environment of any kind though. I think tab is more a tuition tool, it’s useful to be able to specify where a student puts their fingers. In the same way as professional string players write their fingerings and bowing into parts the assumption is presumably that a working guitar player doesn’t need to be told where to put their fingers and it’s their business.
In terms of reading, it opens other doors. For my own line of work I’m glad I was taught it early on even if I’m not a great reader, I can do it. I know quite a few really good jazz players who can’t do this (they all have great ears, and learn from records though)
and this is why tab is useful for teaching.Rock recordings transcribed as notation often must include novel symbols to convey sounds that can be heard on recordings but which notation cannot convey: pull-offs, hammer-ons, fuzz, reverb, etc.
Tbf jazz has the same problem - there’s a wealth of nuance on recordings that can’t be represented in notation in horn solos and so on. Even the basic time feel can’t be notated, obviously.
Just because discussions of jazz often focus on the pitch choices ad nauseum and these are most frequently studied using scores and analysis doesn’t mean that’s the end of the story, merely these are the elements most easily represented in European notation.
however speaking of rhythm, the same could be said of European music! To play Mozart well requires an understanding of the music beyond the score. Chopin requires a subtle understanding of rubato, which can’t be notated. The Viennese waltz has a specific microrhythmic lilt that can’t be written down, and so on. Otoh in jazz good reading horn players learn to phrase and swing thief parts from scores through experience.
A reading guitarist must learn to do the same: if someone writes a typical descending pentatonic run, the guitarist should be able to recognise it right away and use an idiomatic fingering and left hand slurs etc. You have to see the phrase, understand its shape and meaning, and interpret according to the style. That’s a lot of experience mostly! improvisation is really not a polar opposite to reading in this sense, in fact the two things have a lot in common.
in this sense written music is always an imperfect image of the music that needs to be fleshed out by the interpreter, a recipe at best.Last edited by Christian Miller; 01-04-2023 at 05:47 AM.
-
Almost certainly not, because Lennon and McCartney never even wrote down their ideas, because they believed if they were any good, they'd remember them. At least, that's the story. Paul McCartney never learned to read music. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
People like Jon Lord, John Paul Jones and Rick Wakeman had musical educations. The Schumann brothers from Gentle Giant were all sophisticated musicians. I'm assuming Jimmy Page could read because he played sessions and they surely didn't play the songs for musicians who couldn't read. I think I may have heard of some session musician or other who couldn't read music, but was a particularly good soloist, but generally speaking, they had to be good, fast readers.Watching Get Back suggests it was all aural, and I assume this is way everyone learned back then as materials on ‘how to rock guitar’ were pretty thin on the ground.
-
It is always reassuring when auto-correct gets it right! Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Sure it can! You just write "rubato" over the staff! Originally Posted by Christian Miller
There are contemporary accounts that confirm that Chopin's left hand played a rock steady rhythm and the rubato was all in the right hand. This makes sense to me. It was also exactly the same with Erroll Garner. I find this the most natural way to play.
When playing Chopin, it seems utterly clear to me that Chopin had extreme independence between his two hands. Some people have that, others don't. For this reason, I simply cannot play Chopin's harder pieces, even if I can get my fingers onto all the right notes.
Reply With Quote
Used Conti 7-string Prototype archtop guitar
Today, 03:07 PM in For Sale