Tab/Notation Hybrid - Uber Tab
Jim Carr
Scores book. I don't have a scanner, so I took a digital photo of it.
It's the first few bars of "Something." Maybe I'm missing something, but
the the only thing the tab appears to lack is a key signature.
http://www.azwebpages.com/bass/somethingscore.gif (about 450K)
andrew queisser
"Jim Carr" <newsg...@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:wW1%i.11817$4k....@newsfe11.phx...
distinguished by relatively hard to read numbers. Standard notation spreads
notes out more so it can be visually easier to read.
On the other hand tab has the advantage that you can get optimized
fingerings that may be hard to figure out until you've played the tune a few
times.
I've been reading standard musical notation for many years and took up bass
as my first stringed instrument only a couple years ago. I find that the tab
helps me with the fingering but for everything else I like standard notation
better.
Andrew
Pt
The fact that there are no sharps or flats tells you it is in the key
of C.
Thanks for posting that.
I don't see any bass clef.
Pt
RichL
news:a1a276bc-1548-4b74...@w34g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 15, 2:25 pm, Jim Carr <newsgro...@azwebpages.com> wrote:
> > I have mentioned several times about the tab used in my
Beatles Complete
> > Scores book. I don't have a scanner, so I took a digital
photo of it.
> > It's the first few bars of "Something." Maybe I'm missing
something, but
> > the the only thing the tab appears to lack is a key
signature.
> >
> > http://www.azwebpages.com/bass/somethingscore.gif(about 450K)
>
>
> The fact that there are no sharps or flats tells you it is in
the key
> of C.
Jim's talking about in the sections labeled TAB. Even if the
song were in a key other than C, this "enhanced tab" wouldn't
show it. With the tab indicating both string and fret, a key
signature adds nothing. It would be redundant.
> Thanks for posting that.
> I don't see any bass clef.
Look directly under the section labeled BASS.
RichL
The key signature is totally unnecessary with tab, since sharps,
flats, and naturals would be apparent given the fret and string.
I'm usually partial to using sheet music (if I use anything at
all), but in this case all the timing is indicated, so it's a
distinct improvement over conventional tab.
That Beatles book seems pretty decent. Susan brought hers over
one of the times we jammed together. Still, I feel I'm cheating
a bit by even looking at what you posted ;-)
p.s....The damned check still hasn't shown up against my account!
jeffb
> The key signature is totally unnecessary with tab, since sharps,
> flats, and naturals would be apparent given the fret and string.
It actually may NOT be apparent for someone in the process of learning
theory. If you got a tab number 4 on the E string is it a G# or an Ab?
Calling it a G# is going to be very confusing when you start trying to
name the notes that make diatonic chords in the key of F. Making obvious
what are flat keys and what are the sharp keys that's inherent to
standard notation is just one more reason to leave tab alone. It just
got too many holes in it. (and yes, against my better judgment I did
just shift gears to tab vs. standard notation)
If people cared a little less about trying so hard to sound good and
just did the work it takes to actually become a good musician the market
for tab would evaporate. The quick fix mentality rules though.......
And now that I've seen the "über-tab" I'm not especially impressed. The
amount of work it takes to put all the elements of note, rhythm and
dynamics together seems a whole lot more time consuming than using
standard notation even if you don't read it fluently. Trying to bring a
die hard tab-ite to the point they see this though (and Jim isn't the
first one I've wasted breathe on...probably a commentary on MY
stupidity) is like trying to get a real dumb dog to climb a ladder.
Jim Carr
> For sight-reading tab has the disadvantage that notes on one string are only
> distinguished by relatively hard to read numbers. Standard notation spreads
> notes out more so it can be visually easier to read.
My complaint with that book is that the print is WAY too small and
mashed together. I have other books where the tab is just as spread out
as the standard notation. But I agree - by its very nature tab would
still be harder to read.
Jim Carr
> On Nov 15, 2:25 pm, Jim Carr <newsgro...@azwebpages.com> wrote:
>> I have mentioned several times about the tab used in my Beatles Complete
>> Scores book. I don't have a scanner, so I took a digital photo of it.
>> It's the first few bars of "Something." Maybe I'm missing something, but
>> the the only thing the tab appears to lack is a key signature.
>>
>> http://www.azwebpages.com/bass/somethingscore.gif(about 450K)
>
>
> The fact that there are no sharps or flats tells you it is in the key
> of C.
Oh, sorry. What I meant was that the tab "staff" by itself doesn't
denote a key. If there were sharps or flats, you still wouldn't see them
on the tab part of it, but you would on the standard staff.
> Thanks for posting that.
> I don't see any bass clef.
There's standard notation for all of the parts, plus tab for the guitar
and bass parts.
Jim Carr
> The key signature is totally unnecessary with tab, since sharps,
> flats, and naturals would be apparent given the fret and string.
> I'm usually partial to using sheet music (if I use anything at
> all), but in this case all the timing is indicated, so it's a
> distinct improvement over conventional tab.
True. The reason I like to know the key is that it helps me anticipate
chord changes. You know, if we're in C and the guitarist starts a little
walk down to the A, I figure he's hitting an Am, even if he doesn't know
what it's called. :-)
> That Beatles book seems pretty decent. Susan brought hers over
> one of the times we jammed together. Still, I feel I'm cheating
> a bit by even looking at what you posted ;-)
LOL! The type is so damned small, though. Other than that, great book,
especially for vocalists learning harmonies.
> p.s....The damned check still hasn't shown up against my account!
Because I'm a shithead. Our nanny went back to Hungary a few months ago,
so I'm watching Zane (20 months) full time during the day and working
(self employed) during his naps and in the evening. Little Tibor is due
to pop out any day now. Never mix being extremely busy with
procrastination.
U_R_a_shithead
@newsfe11.phx:
> Because I'm a shithead.
A given.
> Our nanny went back to Hungary a few months ago,
Fed up with being treated like a piece of meat? After your first wife
dumped you, one would have thought that you would have learned not to treat
women like crap. Obviously not.
> so I'm watching Zane (20 months) full time during the day and working
> (self employed) during his naps and in the evening. Little Tibor is due
> to pop out any day now.
Who will undoubtedly inherit your sociopathic mentality and follow in your
footsteps.
> Never mix being extremely busy with procrastination.
Too bad you aren't making enough to afford to hire another slave to take
care of your kids.
Jim Carr
> And now that I've seen the "über-tab" I'm not especially impressed. The
> amount of work it takes to put all the elements of note, rhythm and
> dynamics together seems a whole lot more time consuming than using
> standard notation even if you don't read it fluently. Trying to bring a
> die hard tab-ite to the point they see this though (and Jim isn't the
> first one I've wasted breathe on...probably a commentary on MY
> stupidity) is like trying to get a real dumb dog to climb a ladder.
Don't make me your straw man so you can swing your dick around about how
you're the poster boy for become the world's most dedicated bass player.
I've said repeatedly that I only use tab when I'm in a hurry or when I'm
stuck on a hard part. That does not make me a tab-ite. I keep saying
that my preferred method is to noodle it out myself, just like most of
the people here. I'm in an original band these days, so tab doesn't even
exist for me.
I've said all that already. It seems to me that you read English about
as well as you read tab.
Jim Carr
>> Because I'm a shithead.
>
> A given.
But sometimes people need reminding.
>> Our nanny went back to Hungary a few months ago,
>
>
> Fed up with being treated like a piece of meat? After your first wife
> dumped you, one would have thought that you would have learned not to treat
> women like crap. Obviously not.
Yeh, she got tired of all the cameras in the bathroom.
>> so I'm watching Zane (20 months) full time during the day and working
>> (self employed) during his naps and in the evening. Little Tibor is due
>> to pop out any day now.
>
>
> Who will undoubtedly inherit your sociopathic mentality and follow in your
> footsteps.
But that begs the question of nature versus nurture. My father wasn't a
sociopath.
>> Never mix being extremely busy with procrastination.
>
> Too bad you aren't making enough to afford to hire another slave to take
> care of your kids.
Actually, she'll be staying home with the baby and Zane for a while. Are
you looking for work? Obviously you must be between contracts since
you're posting so much lately.
Do you know how to change a poopie diaper?
RichL
Jim, getting him to actually read what you say is pointless.
It's clear from this thread and a few others that the guy
basically has no functioning input channel. His whole schtick is
flaunting his supposed musical superiority. Music nazis tend to
be that way.
RichL
> RichL wrote:
> > That Beatles book seems pretty decent. Susan brought hers
over
> > one of the times we jammed together. Still, I feel I'm
cheating
> > a bit by even looking at what you posted ;-)
>
> LOL! The type is so damned small, though. Other than that,
great book,
> especially for vocalists learning harmonies.
Yeah, I may actually pick up a copy at some point. I've got a
little side project going, the object is to record my 15 or so
favorite Beatles songs. But I gotta tell you, when I downloaded
bass tab for Nowhere Man, I couldn't sleep for a few days
afterwards, even though I fixed it up :-)
> > p.s....The damned check still hasn't shown up against my
account!
>
> Because I'm a shithead. Our nanny went back to Hungary a few
months ago,
> so I'm watching Zane (20 months) full time during the day and
working
> (self employed) during his naps and in the evening. Little
Tibor is due
> to pop out any day now. Never mix being extremely busy with
> procrastination.
Wow, another one, huh? Great! Hope she's doing well!
BTW the sound card & Sonar are working together just great, no
problems whatsoever since I downloaded the Sonar patches. The
first tune (In My Life) is going slowly, but mainly because I'm
trying to learn everything pretty thoroughly about the software
at every step. All set to mix down and master now! Got 12
tracks recorded, with a bunch of effects (but *very* subtle), but
the point is my comp. is handling it all very well, only using
between 10 and 15% of cpu on playback.
Sonar 6 Producer has a couple of spectrum-analyzer-type add-ons
that I've found very useful to detect peaks and valleys in the EQ
curve of individual tracks and apply appropriate corrections.
Damn, I don't know why I stuck with the stand-alone Fostex for so
long, this is like night and day!
Jim Carr
> BTW the sound card & Sonar are working together just great, no
> problems whatsoever since I downloaded the Sonar patches. The
> first tune (In My Life) is going slowly, but mainly because I'm
> trying to learn everything pretty thoroughly about the software
> at every step.
You're not looking at the manual or the help file, are you? I learned
how to use Sonar by experimentation and study. I mean, you *do* care how
you sound, don't you? :-)
> Sonar 6 Producer has a couple of spectrum-analyzer-type add-ons
> that I've found very useful to detect peaks and valleys in the EQ
> curve of individual tracks and apply appropriate corrections.
What does your son think about this? Personally, I'm against doing it
visually like that. Go to the parametric EQ (double-click to bring up
the window). Add just one node with a narrow Q and a moderate cut, then
sweep it across the frequencies. See if something sticks out. It's a
good way to train your ears.
> Damn, I don't know why I stuck with the stand-alone Fostex for so
> long, this is like night and day!
No doubt. It lets you spend so much more of your effort on the music.
Hey, did you know that Sonar will show tablature on a fretboard along
with the standard notation for MIDI tracks?
<duckling for cover>
Jonathan
>I have mentioned several times about the tab used in my Beatles Complete
>Scores book. I don't have a scanner, so I took a digital photo of it. It's
>the first few bars of "Something." Maybe I'm missing something, but the the
>only thing the tab appears to lack is a key signature.
>
If you have a recording, a full score, a chord chart, and you STILL need
little numbers to tell you how to play the song, then you're beyond help.
Even if Stanley Clarke comes over to your place, sits you down and puts your
hands on the right frets, you're still not gonna get it.
Jim Carr
> Jim Carr wrote:
>
>> Hey, did you know that Sonar will show tablature on a fretboard along
>> with the standard notation for MIDI tracks?
>
> musicians. The midi software I use has standard notation, none of that
> there tab stuff... :-)
Yeh, but standard notation on Linux boxes only prints out at one size,
because *that* is what the official spec says. And there are no triplets
yet because the guy who was gonna write that part got a girlfriend and
dropped out of SourceForge.
> Just kidding, but maybe I better duck anyway?
>
>> <duckling for cover>
>
> Ducklings??? Must be the baby sitting time rubbing off:-)
No doubt!
On a side note: Before Zane was born I had already decided I wouldn't
push him when it came to music (or any of my other loves) because I
figured my natural enthusiasm would be enough if he was predisposed to
any of my interests.
Well, it turns out the kid loves music. I don't mean the adorable (yet
normal) dancing they do. Some days this kid will ask me to turn on a CD.
Then he will sit down with me on the floor and just listen for like 10
or 15 minutes, which is an eternity in Toddler Time.
He doesn't watch TV other than the Brainy Baby stuff and some Hungarian
cartoons on DVD (check out Kisvakond on YouTube - Little Mole). When he
was at the computer one day I showed him some live music videos I
downloaded (Tull, Zep, Petty at the Concert for George). He was
transfixed. Now he asks for music DVDs (as he calls them) every single day.
So I recorded Rock Fest, a video show with older rock music and showed
him stuff from that. He *only* likes the ones where people are
performing - none of that "tell a story" or "look at the hot babes"
crap. He needs to see the musicians doing their thing.
So I bought the Concert for George Harrison DVD (best $12 I ever spent).
He absolutely loves it. One DVD is the raw concert, the other is an
edited version with narration and interviews. Once I put in the second
one by mistake. As soon it switched to an interview, he started asking
for more music.
Freaky. Anyone else have similar experiences with kids that age (18 months)?
Jim Carr
I don't know why you feel the need to be such a little prick at times.
Did I ever once say I "needed" the scores or the tabs?
Tell you what: I'll pay you $20 to black out all the tab on all 1,100
pages so I won't be tempted to look at it. Just tell me where to ship it.
Do you ever just want to play songs for fun, Jonathan? Do you ever sit
around one evening and say, "You know, I've always wanted to play 'Hey,
Bulldog' just for shits and grins"?
Well, sometimes I do. It's fun and relaxing. Sometimes I pick up on the
song right away, sometimes I don't. When I don't, I have a few choices.
I can sit up and try to noodle it out for myself, which means I'm not
having as much fun as I do when I'm playing it. Alternatively, I can
open my book and learn to be play it less time than it takes for me to
listen to the song once. Or I can move on to another easier song.
I've done all three. Does that make me a bad person? Just let me know so
I can sell my basses and quit my band. I mean, you're a WORKING PRO and
I'm just a weekend warrior, Carole Kaye wannabe.
RichL
> RichL wrote:
>
> > BTW the sound card & Sonar are working together just great,
no
> > problems whatsoever since I downloaded the Sonar patches.
The
> > first tune (In My Life) is going slowly, but mainly because
I'm
> > trying to learn everything pretty thoroughly about the
software
> > at every step.
>
> You're not looking at the manual or the help file, are you? I
learned
> how to use Sonar by experimentation and study. I mean, you *do*
care how
> you sound, don't you? :-)
LOL! Being an advocate of learning any way I can (and a Libra to
boot), I'm reading the manual (not so good), a book I bought
about Sonar 6 from Amazon (very good IMO), the help file (just a
little), *and* experimentation. Swapping frequently among all of
them. Sorry if I've disappointed you ;-)
> > Sonar 6 Producer has a couple of spectrum-analyzer-type
add-ons
> > that I've found very useful to detect peaks and valleys in
the EQ
> > curve of individual tracks and apply appropriate corrections.
>
> What does your son think about this? Personally, I'm against
doing it
> visually like that. Go to the parametric EQ (double-click to
bring up
> the window). Add just one node with a narrow Q and a moderate
cut, then
> sweep it across the frequencies. See if something sticks out.
It's a
> good way to train your ears.
Yep, done it both ways. To me, it's interesting to correlate the
results obtained each way. It sorta gives confirmation that my
ears are hearing the right things. But I think the graphic
displays are cool, from a techie perspective.
> > Damn, I don't know why I stuck with the stand-alone Fostex
for so
> > long, this is like night and day!
>
> No doubt. It lets you spend so much more of your effort on the
music.
> Hey, did you know that Sonar will show tablature on a fretboard
along
> with the standard notation for MIDI tracks?
>
> <duckling for cover>
Duckling? Peking-style, I hope!
Actually I haven't looked at either. My use of MIDI so far has
been limited to punching in a piano part note-by-note using the
keyboard view. I had never used MIDI before in any context, so
that was enough for me, even with the relatively brief piano solo
of In My Life!
RichL
Yeah, a few. My two sons at that age expressed a curiosity about
music in several different respects. The one thing they did an
awful lot when I was playing guitars in their presence back then
(yes, I'm primarily a guitarist, shame, shame) was come over and
strum the guitar. It was a good opportunity to try to explain
rhythm and beats, I'd get them eventually to be able to do it on
the beat while I was tapping my foot, and then they took over the
foot-tapping part. But yeah, I'd let them take the initiative,
and just be there to fill in the blanks.
Must have worked for me....son #1 is now a full-time music
producer, terrific drummer, and pretty good on guitars and keys.
And son #2 kicks my ass on bass and holds his own on guitar and
has produced a grandson for me, who is getting closer to *that
age*. So the cycle starts anew....
But neither one of them can read a lick of tab or sheet music!
My daughters, on the other hand, only expressed interest in
musical instruments when they were dating musicians. Go
figure...they got the same exposure!
js
"jeffb" <jeff...@nospam.ca> wrote in message
news:Dm8%i.73$cD.4@pd7urf2no...
Gary Rosen
Hey, it sounds like you're having fun and relaxing now, Jim :^).
- Gary Rosen
Mike
> > p.s....The damned check still hasn't shown up against my account!
>
> Because I'm a shithead. Our nanny went back to Hungary a few months ago,
> so I'm watching Zane (20 months) full time during the day and working
> (self employed) during his naps and in the evening. Little Tibor is due
> to pop out any day now. Never mix being extremely busy with
> procrastination.
A Hungarian nanny? What a life you must lead!
Are you drilling rock music into Zane's head yet? It's not too soon
to start! Congrats on the soon-to-arrive new addition.
Mike
jeffb
> Do you ever just want to play songs for fun, Jonathan? Do you ever sit
> around one evening and say, "You know, I've always wanted to play 'Hey,
> Bulldog' just for shits and grins"?
You keep coming back to this "just for fun".....
I'm starting to realize that using tab "just for fun" is exactly like
using a walkthrough to take you step by step through a video game
without discovering on your own how to get through it.
(if you are unfamiliar with what a walkthrough is here's an example:
http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/file/939029/48597 ).
What you fail to understand is that for most people the fun is in the
discovery and being shown and that taking the challenge out is not
something to try and justify in public and expect sympathy. You have a
number of different people arguing against you and not many standing
with you. That's because like using a walkthrough using tab not
something to be especially proud of in a community where many have done
a lot of hard work.
All through this "discussion" you've never once allowed yourself to
understand what several have in different ways tried to show....tab is a
form that despite showing you where to put your fingers on a bass tuned
in 4ths in some ways takes you further away from the music rather than
bringing you to it. This is not "fun". Rather than giving consideration
to this you're like a petulant six year old tying his shoes with a
granny knot rather than a more useful right over left/left over right
bow screaming "I WANNA DO IT *MY* WAY!" The difference is that even the
six year old is gonna get tired of tripping on his laces and figure it out.
Susan
> Jonathan wrote:
>> "Jim Carr" <newsg...@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
>> news:wW1%i.11817$4k....@newsfe11.phx...
>>> I have mentioned several times about the tab used in my Beatles Complete
>>> Scores book. I don't have a scanner, so I took a digital photo of it. It's
>>> the first few bars of "Something." Maybe I'm missing something, but the the
>>> only thing the tab appears to lack is a key signature.
>>>
>> If you have a recording, a full score, a chord chart, and you STILL need
>> little numbers to tell you how to play the song, then you're beyond help.
>> Even if Stanley Clarke comes over to your place, sits you down and puts your
>> hands on the right frets, you're still not gonna get it.
>
> I don't know why you feel the need to be such a little prick at times.
> Did I ever once say I "needed" the scores or the tabs?
I don't get it, Jim. From the beginning of this argument, you've been
saying that you almost always figure out songs by ear, and have a look
at tab if you're in a hurry and aren't getting the song right away, but
that you could get it if you weren't in a hurry and had the time to spend.
Jim, you also clearly said that you use tab to get the notes. And that
you don't necessarily use the fingering in the tab. And that it just
gets you started, as you can hear where the tab is wrong.
Sounds like you're in a place I'm working towards, being able to play by
ear. Sounds like you have your priorities straight, that you can already
play by ear and only use tab as a jump start on a few songs when you're
in a hurry. Kind of like reading the help screens on a new program.
I really don't get this straw man argument aimed at you. You never once
said that tab was better, just that it was out there and people use it,
and what do you think about this new format for tab. What's the big deal?
> Tell you what: I'll pay you $20 to black out all the tab on all 1,100
> pages so I won't be tempted to look at it. Just tell me where to ship it.
Tehehe, is this a new service someone is offering? I have a bunch of
sheet music I bought and paid for and all of it has standard notation
and tab.
The print in that Beatles book is really, really small. I would have
liked it better if they just made the print bigger and left out the tab.
And I would have liked it if the songs in the other books fit into fewer
pages, which would be possible if they left out the tab. But the folks
at Hal Leonard don't see it my way. Dear me.
The big problem with tab, for me, in these books, is that it's kind of
hard to ignore. Kind of like reading the subtitles at a movie when you
are learning the language.
My teacher started me out with standard notation along with tab. He
stopped giving me tab one day and I didn't notice. I've started to work
out songs by ear, though I do like sheet music. My nephew was the same
way, started with tab and standard notation, he plays several stringed
instruments beautifully and by ear these days, and keyboards too.
It only hurts if you depend on it. I don't see Jim or anyone else here
saying that depending on tab is a good thing.
So, what's the problem?
-Susan
Brian Running
> Scores book. I don't have a scanner, so I took a digital photo of it.
> It's the first few bars of "Something." Maybe I'm missing something, but
> the the only thing the tab appears to lack is a key signature.
Interesting. I've never used tab, never had the inclination to, and I'm
one of those guys that thinks it's a diversion from what you really
ought to spend your time and effort learning. It's immaterial that you
play a particular note at the specific fret on the specific string that
the transcriber suggests. But, I sure don't care! If that's what works
for you, then knock 'em dead!
I believe that the lack of a key signature is not a lack at all, that's
the key of C.
RichL
>
> > The key signature is totally unnecessary with tab, since
sharps,
> > flats, and naturals would be apparent given the fret and
string.
>
> It actually may NOT be apparent for someone in the process of
learning
> theory. If you got a tab number 4 on the E string is it a G# or
an Ab?
> Calling it a G# is going to be very confusing when you start
trying to
> name the notes that make diatonic chords in the key of F.
Making obvious
> what are flat keys and what are the sharp keys that's inherent
to
> standard notation is just one more reason to leave tab alone.
It just
> got too many holes in it. (and yes, against my better judgment
I did
> just shift gears to tab vs. standard notation)
Yes, nobody's claiming it's perfect. But anyone with half a
brain can figure out whether tab number 4 on the E string is G#
or Ab based on the context of the rest of the notes. And as an
advocate for picking tunes out by ear (as you are also, if I
understand correctly), I have to ask how tab is any more
deficient than ear-picking in that respect? In both cases, you
have to use your *head*.
You've basically set up a straw man by claiming that people who
use tab don't do any of that brain work.
> If people cared a little less about trying so hard to sound
good and
> just did the work it takes to actually become a good musician
the market
> for tab would evaporate. The quick fix mentality rules
though.......
See above. Your assumptions don't necessarily correlate with
reality.
> And now that I've seen the "über-tab" I'm not especially
impressed. The
> amount of work it takes to put all the elements of note, rhythm
and
> dynamics together seems a whole lot more time consuming than
using
> standard notation even if you don't read it fluently. Trying to
bring a
> die hard tab-ite to the point they see this though (and Jim
isn't the
> first one I've wasted breathe on...probably a commentary on MY
> stupidity) is like trying to get a real dumb dog to climb a
ladder.
I'm not sure who's dumber in that instance, the dog or the stupid
owner that thinks he can get the dog to do it (hint!).
Jim Carr
>> I have mentioned several times about the tab used in my Beatles
>> Complete Scores book. I don't have a scanner, so I took a digital
>> photo of it. It's the first few bars of "Something." Maybe I'm missing
>> something, but the the only thing the tab appears to lack is a key
>> signature.
>
> Interesting. I've never used tab, never had the inclination to, and I'm
> one of those guys that thinks it's a diversion from what you really
> ought to spend your time and effort learning. It's immaterial that you
> play a particular note at the specific fret on the specific string that
> the transcriber suggests. But, I sure don't care! If that's what works
> for you, then knock 'em dead!
You know, I don't see it as me being supposed to fret at the 7th fret on
the lowest string. When I look at it, I see a B, much like I do with
standard notation. Maybe I fret it there, maybe I don't. It's just a B
in my mind, not a fret-string intersection that is supposed to bypass my
brain and go straight to my hands.
Maybe that's part of what gets people so pissy about it. They think it's
just a mindless set of numbers whereas I see it as a shorthand and
somewhat flawed way of telling me what standard notation tells me. What
I do with that information is up to me.
> I believe that the lack of a key signature is not a lack at all, that's
> the key of C.
There's no way to mark the key on the tab. If it was in another key, the
tab would look the same. The staff, of course, would be marked accordingly.
RichL
Yeah, you, Gary, and js sure as hell amount to a lot of people.
I should just give up, because I'm being overwhelmed by sheer
numbers.
You guys are masters of the straw-man argument. The trouble is,
Jim and I don't conform. Both of us have stated on numerous
occasions that our *primary* method of learning new tunes is
listening. But somehow, that's not registering. Funny, that.
You've got an agenda to push and don't want to be bothered with
reality.
> All through this "discussion" you've never once allowed
yourself to
> understand what several have in different ways tried to
show....tab is a
> form that despite showing you where to put your fingers on a
bass tuned
> in 4ths in some ways takes you further away from the music
rather than
> bringing you to it. This is not "fun". Rather than giving
consideration
> to this you're like a petulant six year old tying his shoes
with a
> granny knot rather than a more useful right over left/left over
right
> bow screaming "I WANNA DO IT *MY* WAY!" The difference is that
even the
> six year old is gonna get tired of tripping on his laces and
figure it out.
Can't you see that it's a matter of how it's used? By not
opening your mind and eyes and looking at how people actually use
tab and sheet music, you're guilty of prejudice, pure and simple.
This argument is asinine.
As for "screaming "I WANNA DO IT *MY* WAY!", this is a clear case
of pot, kettle, black. I don't recall Jim ever saying his way is
the only way. You, however, are a different story.
Brian Running
> just a mindless set of numbers whereas I see it as a shorthand and
> somewhat flawed way of telling me what standard notation tells me. What
> I do with that information is up to me.
What I see is something that is so close to real notation, that there's
no reason not to take that step and go all the way to a universal
musical language.
>> I believe that the lack of a key signature is not a lack at all,
>> that's the key of C.
> There's no way to mark the key on the tab. If it was in another key, the
> tab would look the same. The staff, of course, would be marked accordingly.
Why couldn't the keys be noted the same way they are on a regular staff,
except that the sharps and flats wouldn't correspond to a line? Three
flats would still be E flat, two sharps would still be D, etc. With the
notation used in your Beatles book, it's so close to the real thing, why
not do it that way? And what about five and six string bassists? Is
there no tab for them?
Jim Carr
> What I see is something that is so close to real notation, that there's
> no reason not to take that step and go all the way to a universal
> musical language.
There are several reasons in my mind, all of which have been covered
before. First, there's a shitload of free tab on the interwebs that does
not exist in standard notation (plus it's free). Sounds like a good
reason to me - probably the single most important reason for its
popularity.
Second, most any guitarist/bassist who sees a tab for the first time can
probably figure out how to read it. It's not as easy to do that with
standard notation. So, if you've never learned standard notation (I
have) I can see why you wouldn't feel the need to move on if tab does
the job for you. And I'm sure some people see just fret-string
intersections, so to them it is much simpler than reading a staff and
making up their own fret-string intersection. Laziness, if you will.
Personally, I see room for both. I'm not dogmatic about it. Use whatever
you want (including just your ears) to get you where you want to go. I
never said the world needed tab or that I needed it. It's there, so use
it if you want to.
>> There's no way to mark the key on the tab. If it was in another key,
>> the tab would look the same. The staff, of course, would be marked
>> accordingly.
>
> Why couldn't the keys be noted the same way they are on a regular staff,
> except that the sharps and flats wouldn't correspond to a line? Three
> flats would still be E flat, two sharps would still be D, etc.
That would work. You could also just write "Key: Db" and skip the
accidentals.
>With the
> notation used in your Beatles book, it's so close to the real thing, why
> not do it that way?
Money. You'll sell a *lot* more copies if you include tab. I suppose
that's why nearly every rock/pop music book for bassists includes tab.
It is what it is. If everybody took the time to learn to read standard
notation, you'd see a lot less tab. I've never seen a music book that
came in your choice of standard notation, tab, or both.
One good thing about the tab in the Beatles book is that it takes a
tab-only reader one step closer to learning standard notation.
>And what about five and six string bassists? Is
> there no tab for them?
Now you're just funnin', right? If they can make tab for six string
guitars, I'm betting they can do it for basses.
Jim Carr
> You guys are masters of the straw-man argument. The trouble is,
> Jim and I don't conform. Both of us have stated on numerous
> occasions that our *primary* method of learning new tunes is
> listening. But somehow, that's not registering. Funny, that.
> You've got an agenda to push and don't want to be bothered with
> reality.
Yeh, I'm done with Jeff. I admit it - I'm a bad person. In the 27 years
since I got my first bass at age 14, I have used sheet music and tab on
occasion. Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned and will sin again.
Seriously, I have no idea what he's after other than a contract that
says if I use any notation ever again I must immediately surrender all
of my basses.
Susan
>> Maybe that's part of what gets people so pissy about it. They think it's
>> just a mindless set of numbers whereas I see it as a shorthand and
>> somewhat flawed way of telling me what standard notation tells me. What
>> I do with that information is up to me.
>
> What I see is something that is so close to real notation, that there's
> no reason not to take that step and go all the way to a universal
> musical language.
The idea with tab is you can write it in a text editor in plain old
ASCII text. You can't do that with standard notation. I don't know
what's going on with music XML, but for the people who write tab, and
I'm not one of them, what they're doing is the easiest way to post
something online that doesn't require special software to do so.
Take care,
-Susan
Susan
> Susan wrote:
>> Jim Carr wrote:
>>
>>> Hey, did you know that Sonar will show tablature on a fretboard along
>>> with the standard notation for MIDI tracks?
>> Ah, well, there it is, proof that Linux is the superior OS for real
>> musicians. The midi software I use has standard notation, none of that
>> there tab stuff... :-)
>
> Yeh, but standard notation on Linux boxes only prints out at one size,
> because *that* is what the official spec says. And there are no triplets
> yet because the guy who was gonna write that part got a girlfriend and
> dropped out of SourceForge.
That guy must have gotten married or something, because triplets and all
sorts of things are available:) And the printing is pretty good too.
Anyway, my comment was just a joke, use whatever works for you!
>> Just kidding, but maybe I better duck anyway?
-Susan
Jim Carr
>
>> What I see is something that is so close to real notation, that
>> there's no reason not to take that step and go all the way to a
>> universal musical language.
To clarify - there's no *technical* reason, no.
Jim Carr
>> Yeh, but standard notation on Linux boxes only prints out at one size,
>> because *that* is what the official spec says. And there are no
>> triplets yet because the guy who was gonna write that part got a
>> girlfriend and dropped out of SourceForge.
>
> That guy must have gotten married or something, because triplets and all
> sorts of things are available:) And the printing is pretty good too.
> Anyway, my comment was just a joke, use whatever works for you!
I was joking, too. I just like making fun of Linux users, even if I'm
full of it.
jeffb
> Yes, nobody's claiming it's perfect. But anyone with half a
> brain can figure out whether tab number 4 on the E string is G#
> or Ab based on the context of the rest of the notes. And as an
> advocate for picking tunes out by ear (as you are also, if I
> understand correctly), I have to ask how tab is any more
> deficient than ear-picking in that respect? In both cases, you
> have to use your *head*.
If you don't know that F is a flat key then having "half a brain" may
not be the issue. If you don't know tab isn't going to tell you and
that's my ONLY point there.
> You've basically set up a straw man by claiming that people who
> use tab don't do any of that brain work.
No, I'm saying that if you don't already have a grasp of sharp and flat
keys tab won't inform you.
>> If people cared a little less about trying so hard to sound
> good and
>> just did the work it takes to actually become a good musician
> the market
>> for tab would evaporate. The quick fix mentality rules
> though.......
>
> See above. Your assumptions don't necessarily correlate with
> reality.
Who's reality?
>> And now that I've seen the "über-tab" I'm not especially
> impressed. The
>> amount of work it takes to put all the elements of note, rhythm
> and
>> dynamics together seems a whole lot more time consuming than
> using
>> standard notation even if you don't read it fluently. Trying to
> bring a
>> die hard tab-ite to the point they see this though (and Jim
> isn't the
>> first one I've wasted breathe on...probably a commentary on MY
>> stupidity) is like trying to get a real dumb dog to climb a
> ladder.
>
> I'm not sure who's dumber in that instance, the dog or the stupid
> owner that thinks he can get the dog to do it (hint!).
No argument there. My forehead is starting to get sore from the beating
I'm giving it.
jeffb
> "jeffb" <jeff...@nospam.ca> wrote in message
> news:Lah%i.1419$PE.1274@pd7urf1no...
>> Jim Carr wrote:
> Yeah, you, Gary, and js sure as hell amount to a lot of people.
> I should just give up, because I'm being overwhelmed by sheer
> numbers.
We do represent the attitude typical of the majority of freelance
players though.
> You guys are masters of the straw-man argument. The trouble is,
> Jim and I don't conform. Both of us have stated on numerous
> occasions that our *primary* method of learning new tunes is
> listening. But somehow, that's not registering. Funny, that.
> You've got an agenda to push and don't want to be bothered with
> reality.
Just saying our arguments are straw-man doesn't make it so. If you're
going to make this accusation you'll have to logically dissect where
this fallacy occurs.
> Can't you see that it's a matter of how it's used? By not
> opening your mind and eyes and looking at how people actually use
> tab and sheet music, you're guilty of prejudice, pure and simple.
> This argument is asinine.
Asinine? No. I grant that tab in and of itself is not in all instances a
hideous breach of the nose to the grindstone work ethic. Any right
thinking person interested in the most economical way of giving and
receiving written musical information has to admit it is a hugely flawed
system....that in terms of pure efficiency time spent with tab is better
spent with standard notation.
Jim Carr
> We do represent the attitude typical of the majority of freelance
> players though.
No, not really. You said that any teacher that uses tab should be (and I
quote) "avoided". Shaughnessy is a teacher and uses it with his students
and sells a few books with tab. He may see absolutely no use for it, but
he uses it nonetheless. I'm betting Jonathan uses it when teaching as
well, but I don't know for sure. I know he's a big Victor Wooten fan and
Vic uses a modified form of tab on his website along with regular
tab/staff you find in books.
And like I said to Shaughnessy, I don't want to be like him or you.
> Asinine? No. I grant that tab in and of itself is not in all instances a
> hideous breach of the nose to the grindstone work ethic. Any right
> thinking person interested in the most economical way of giving and
> receiving written musical information has to admit it is a hugely flawed
> system....that in terms of pure efficiency time spent with tab is better
> spent with standard notation.
And who has argued against ANY of that? Not me. Not Rich. This is why
you're accused of the straw man argument. I said early on it was flawed.
I said that standard notation was a better method of conveying
information. I said that noodling it out yourself is the most
educational method (and my preferred method). Just who are you arguing with?
Jim Carr
> Glad you said all that and not me...
BTW, how are your slap books selling these days? You know, the ones with
the tabs in them?
jeffb
> Just who are you arguing with?
This is going nowhere. I've for the most part responded to specifically
to individual posts. Rich has taken me to task for missing some things
you said and I've fessed up to that but honestly I don't have the energy
to read everything you post. If you can't see and own up to your part in
this confusion....Ah, never mind. I'm not gonna hold my breathe waiting
for you to admit any faults.
I will say though it kinda pisses me off that when I did try to share
something important to me you blew it off with nothing but sourness and
suspicion. I'm opinionated to be sure but I've done some work and I'm
not without things to teach...or without *many* things to learn. Despite
the title of this thread you started I don't see much evidence you want
to learn anything from anyone who isn't nice as pie. Sorry I'm not
always. Throw the baby out with the bath water Jim.
Done.
Gary Rosen
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:B4k%i.68684$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> Maybe that's part of what gets people so pissy about it. They think it's
>> just a mindless set of numbers whereas I see it as a shorthand and
>> somewhat flawed way of telling me what standard notation tells me. What I
>> do with that information is up to me.
>
> What I see is something that is so close to real notation, that there's no
> reason not to take that step and go all the way to a universal musical
> language.
That is the key phrase - "universal musical language". Standard notation
doesn't just tell you what the notes are, but puts them in a context
of the diatonic scale which is the foundation of Western music. It
can also be understood by anyone who plays any instrument. As
Brian points out elsewhere, a lot of tab doesn't even apply to
every bass if it only shows four or five strings. Once again I
ask the question: How many people have ever learned any music
theory from tab?
- Gary Rosen
Jim Carr
> That is the key phrase - "universal musical language". Standard notation
> doesn't just tell you what the notes are, but puts them in a context
> of the diatonic scale which is the foundation of Western music. It
> can also be understood by anyone who plays any instrument. As
> Brian points out elsewhere, a lot of tab doesn't even apply to
> every bass if it only shows four or five strings. Once again I
> ask the question: How many people have ever learned any music
> theory from tab?
Gary, nobody and I mean NOBODY has once said that tab is a replacement
for or superior to standard notation. It has plenty of flaws and
weaknesses. Please put your initials here to indicate you've read that
statement. Apparently lots of people missed it the first 20 times it was
said otherwise we wouldn't keep seeing people arguing about it's
technical faults.
It's shorthand. If you don't get the metaphor, read this:
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/shorthand.htm
There's no *need* for tab just like there's no *need* for lots of things
in this world. Tab is popular with guitarists/bassists because it is
very easy to learn compared to standard notation (obviously, since it
conveys less information), is extremely easy to create and transmit via
the Internet, is available for WAY more songs than there is standard
notation, and combined with a recording conveys enough information to
greatly speed up the learning of a song.
It's not popular because anyone thinks it is better than standard
notation or a "universal musical language" of some sort.
Does any of this bother you? If so, why?
BTW, it's kinda silly to knock tab because you think "it doesn't apply
to every bass." First, all four string tab applies to five and six
string basses (think about it). Besides, how freaking hard is it to add
an extra line or two? They do it for six string guitars. I mean, if this
is an indicator of your understanding of tab...wow.
You want to make the world a better place? Go to www.bassmasta.net and
transcribe the thousands of tabs there over to standard notation. I
promise next time I'm in a pinch, I'll use your free version instead of
the tab. Until then, when I need it I'll take free tab over non-existent
standard notation.
Now, how about you answer the question about what "theory" is conveyed
by standard notation? It's a vague question. You tell me what theory is
gained by reading the bass notation to "Badge" and I'll compare it to
what is gained from reading the tab. I'm sure it will be less, but it
may be an interesting exercise nonetheless.
jeffb
> Once again I
> ask the question: How many people have ever learned any music
> theory from tab?
>
> - Gary Rosen
Gary,
Carr and his ilk don't want to get is so they never will.
They THINK they got it all figured out though and they're so deeply dug
into defense mode that it makes they're understanding what you're trying
to say impossible.
Jim Carr
Actually, Jeff, you already told me that I summed up your premise quite
accurately, so how can you say I don't understand what you're saying?
just_wondering
Did arrogant comments like this cause your first wife to dump you, or did
she just find someone else who had a dick that she could actually see?
Jim Carr
> Did arrogant comments like this cause your first wife to dump you, or did
> she just find someone else who had a dick that she could actually see?
The two aren't mutually exclusive.
just_wondering
And the answer to the question is.....
jeffb
Gosh just_dub I hope yer not holding yer breathe while you wait....
just_wondering
I did not expect a reply, let alone an answer from the dickless coward.
.
jeffb
> that it makes they're understanding what you're trying
> to say impossible.
it might even make *their* understanding impossible.
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
>
> How many people have ever learned any music
> theory from tab?
My guess would be about the same as learn it from standard notation -
approximately zero. I've never learned any music theory from tab.
I've never learned any music theory from standard notation either.
--
Aaron
LagerHaus5 - for all your classic rock needs.
http://www.myspace.com/lagerhaus5
Jim Carr
> Gary Rosen <garym...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> How many people have ever learned any music
>> theory from tab?
>
> My guess would be about the same as learn it from standard notation -
> approximately zero. I've never learned any music theory from tab.
> I've never learned any music theory from standard notation either.
Interestingly, Jeff and Gary have both ignored my request for them to
explain exactly what theory is to be gleaned from standard notation.
just_wondering
@newsfe09.phx:
Perhaps they are both smart enough to realize that it is a waste of time to
attempt to teach anything to an uneducated know-it-all.
jeffb
Be that as it may perhaps someone else will benefit...
Standard notation in and of itself will not teach you theory however
unlike tab it makes it possible to visualize chords very clearly IN A
NON INSTRUMENT SPECIFIC way. Tab shows you where to put your fingers on
a specific instrument, standard notation shows you where the notes are
in relationship to each other which facilitates making the theoretical
connections and hopefully musical connections autonomously.
Why is this such a big deal? The thing about theory is that it is non
instrument specific. A big problem for any instrument is getting locked
into patterns that lie easily under your fingers at the expense of
creativity and musicality. This is not to say you can't puzzle out
theoretical ideas with tab but it certainly does not lend itself to a
cerebral approach as efficiently as does standard notation.
Jim Carr
> Standard notation in and of itself will not teach you theory however
> unlike tab it makes it possible to visualize chords very clearly IN A
> NON INSTRUMENT SPECIFIC way.
That's correct. Tab is instrument specific by its very nature. That's
why you don't see that much oboe tablature out there.
> Tab shows you where to put your fingers on
> a specific instrument, standard notation shows you where the notes are
> in relationship to each other which facilitates making the theoretical
> connections and hopefully musical connections autonomously.
I paid attention to what you have to say, so now it's your turn. Show
*me* some deference when it comes to understanding what tab can and
cannot do because I have a lot more experience with it than you.
Tab gives you string-fret intersections, which represent notes. Standard
notation gives you rhythmic-line intersections which represent the notes
as well as timing (a significant advantage). When *I* look at tab, I see
the notes just like I see them on standard notation (just faster for
various reasons not important here). I don't think of it as the tab
telling me where to put my fingers. *I* decide where to put my fingers.
Given rudimentary free tab on the Internet and a recording I'm somewhat
familiar with (that's the nature of tab and a limitation), I can
effectively sight-read it. This "skill" actually came *very* easy to me
- I never tried to learn how to do it. I can look at tab written from
one position (say D on the A string at the fifth fret) and play it from
another position (D on the E string at the 10th fret). I couldn't do
that if I wasn't seeing the notes.
Do other people do that? Probably. It's not rocket surgery. Do some
people blindly look at fret-string intersections like they are painting
by numbers and take it as gospel? Yep. And shame on them. I bet they
would do the same with standard notation.
When you play, do you notice relationships between notes on the
fretboard? Of course you do. You know what an octave reach feels like.
No matter what finger you used to fret the root, I *know* you can hit
any interval I call out to you.
Well, those same relationships exist in tab. It's simply a visual
representation of the fretboard over time. Yes, it only applies to
fretted instruments. Yes, standard notation does it better. But the
relationships exist nonetheless. When it comes to just the notes and
their interval relationships, it's the same information being conveyed.
It may sound like I use tab a lot, but I really don't. I hate to use the
word intuitive, but I found tab incredibly easy to pick up when I first
saw it. That's probably because I had been playing for 15 years and knew
how to read standard notation before I ever saw tab. It is but one tool
in my arsenal.
I'm in an original band these days, so no tab even exists. I learn the
vast majority of cover songs by ear. When I do use tab, most of the time
I do it like I described above: I study it for a minute first, then put
it away and start playing along with the recording. Sometimes, though, I
will play and read it at the same time. And if I'm really stuck on a
part, I'll go back to it to work it out slowly.
And no matter how I learn a song from a recording, what I play changes
once I play it with other people. The recording becomes nothing more
than a suggestion.