learning to read music
jh
I'm thinking about learning to read music as I'm coming across a fair bit of
material that isn't in TAB (such as this Jim Hall solo
http://www.joefinn.net/html/jim_hall_page.html ), it's obviously a good
skill to have as a musician and well I like a challenge. I'd be doing it
with my guitar teacher who does indeed read music.
I'm not quite sure what to expect really. Is it a case of once you can you
always can? Or is it a skill you must maintain and develop throughout. As in
well I've learnt to read words, I can just do that and I can't ever imagine
I'd forget how! I don't have to practice reading words etc
Also how long does it take to become fluent? I have weekly lessons and on
average I probably practice about 10 hours a week which is probably about a
third of my free time.
Who can read around these parts and do you find it useful in your guitar
studies?
Jim
Grant
"jh" <j...@SPAMjellyandicecream.OFFcom> wrote in message
news:41fbb65f$0$19158$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
The standard for guitar books these days is music plus tab, so it's still
handy to read rhythms. The older jazz guitar books don't have tab, neither
do improvisation books aimed at all instruments. Dave Stewart's book on
reading & writing music is a great introduction & reference. On the other
hand, there's plenty of jazz giants who couldn't read. I've only had to
read on one gig, with 100 guitarists - fortunately all the strings were
tuned to E ;-)
Steve Cobham
<j...@SPAMjellyandicecream.OFFcom> wrote:
>Hello gents
>
>I'm thinking about learning to read music as I'm coming across a fair bit of
>material that isn't in TAB (such as this Jim Hall solo
>http://www.joefinn.net/html/jim_hall_page.html ), it's obviously a good
>skill to have as a musician and well I like a challenge. I'd be doing it
>with my guitar teacher who does indeed read music.
>
>I'm not quite sure what to expect really. Is it a case of once you can you
>always can?
I find that having to read really sharpens me up - otherwise it takes
a bit of effort to get into it. Recently I'm teaching quite a lot of
guitar through the dots so I'm pretty much "in trim".
>Or is it a skill you must maintain and develop throughout. As in
>well I've learnt to read words, I can just do that and I can't ever imagine
>I'd forget how! I don't have to practice reading words etc
I'd say it was more finite than reading. Although the notes, etc can
combine to form millions and millions of permutations, it's not like
reading where you encounter new words and concepts all the time.
I'd say that the struggle is actually getting the music onto the
instrument when those permutations get tricky, not in actually reading
them.
Also, IME music "splits up" after you've been reading it for a few
years - the actual pitches are no problem but rhythmic complexities
can be a real challenge when you have no aural references.
>
>Also how long does it take to become fluent?
An impossible question as it depends on how you take to it - just like
learning to read words, although what you say below will mean that you
stand a good chance of learning quickly.
> I have weekly lessons and on
>average I probably practice about 10 hours a week which is probably about a
>third of my free time.
>
>Who can read around these parts and do you find it useful in your guitar
>studies?
Oh yes, more and more useful as time goes on.
I'd recommend it to anybody who wants to develop quickly as a
musician.
Of course, there'll always be people who say that "so-and-so" can't
read, and cite some fantastic player.
My immediate thought is, "OK, but maybe they'd be even more fantsatic
if they were able to read too."
In the end, of course, there's no substitute for a good ear and
talent, but there seems to be no virtue in purposely remaining
ignorant of musical theory and avoiding it as a somehow "corrupting"
influence.
Steve.
--
Guitar and bass tuition - all styles and levels. | Zappa! Guitar! Beer!
http://users.powernet.co.uk/guitars/tuition.htm | Trade Zappa and Gatton!
mail: st...@XSPAMXguitarsXMAPSX.powernet.co.uk | Save money by setting
Heb de Latz und schpill dini Gitare. | up your own guitar!
Grunt
> hand, there's plenty of jazz giants who couldn't read. I've only had to
> read on one gig, with 100 guitarists - fortunately all the strings were
> tuned to E ;-)
Nearly ....:-)
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.837 / Virus Database: 570 - Release Date: 19/01/2005
jh
jim
"Steve Cobham" <st...@XSPAMXguitarsXMAPSX.powernet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hhinv0tn1vob18nrt...@4ax.com...
Steve at fivetrees
"jh" <j...@SPAMjellyandicecream.OFFcom> wrote in message
news:41fbb65f$0$19158$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> always can? Or is it a skill you must maintain and develop throughout. As
in
> well I've learnt to read words, I can just do that and I can't ever
imagine
> I'd forget how! I don't have to practice reading words etc
Actually you do - you read words every day (I presume!). Same with reading
music: I find I get stale very quickly when I don't use it (and I'm not a
great/fast reader at the best of times).
As Steve C said, it's certainly a useful tool to have. There are no
downsides - *except* if one relies on reading over and above using one's
ears. I've worked with horn sections and fiddle players who were utterly
lost without sheet music.
One small point: one doesn't have to read to be able to understand music
theory, and vice versa.
jh
> > I'd forget how! I don't have to practice reading words etc
>
> Actually you do - you read words every day (I presume!). Same with reading
yes of course very good point steve
jim
Steve Cobham
<st...@NOSPAMTAfivetrees.com> wrote:
>As Steve C said, it's certainly a useful tool to have. There are no
>downsides - *except* if one relies on reading over and above using one's
>ears. I've worked with horn sections and fiddle players who were utterly
>lost without sheet music.
I used to play in a big soul band - the horn players were amazing but
every part had to be written out for them.
Junior Walker never had this problem ;)
Chris Bolus
<st...@XSPAMXguitarsXMAPSX.powernet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Of course, there'll always be people who say that "so-and-so" can't
>read, and cite some fantastic player.
Like Jamie Culham? Yes, I know, not guitar, but...
>
>My immediate thought is, "OK, but maybe they'd be even more fantsatic
>if they were able to read too."
I heard he was learning.
>
>In the end, of course, there's no substitute for a good ear and
>talent, but there seems to be no virtue in purposely remaining
>ignorant of musical theory and avoiding it as a somehow "corrupting"
>influence.
I learned to read music at primary school for the recorder. I don't
think I've ever actually related it to guitar playing. Mind you, I don't
do much beyond chords - I'm proficient enough at that, but learning
anything more is a slow process at my age ;-) I've almost mastered
"Stairway" from tab - well the main part anyway - but it's not really
that challenging a piece is it?
--
Regards, Chris (remove the arachnid to reply by e-mail)
Connection problems? Help is at hand on my tech page at
www.b0lus.com
****** Please email in plain text ******
Steve Cobham
>I've almost mastered
>"Stairway" from tab - well the main part anyway - but it's not really
>that challenging a piece is it?
Having just watched an ARMS concert video - c.1983 with Pagey playing
it - the answer has to be a resounding YES ;)
Was he out of it then or what?
Merlin Fradley
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:35:04 GMT, Chris Bolus <ch...@bolus.com> wrote:
>
> >I've almost mastered
> >"Stairway" from tab - well the main part anyway - but it's not really
> >that challenging a piece is it?
>
> Having just watched an ARMS concert video - c.1983 with Pagey playing
> it - the answer has to be a resounding YES ;)
>
> Was he out of it then or what?
>
Definitely out of it. That's one of my favourite videos, although I've only
seen it on a friends VHS. Is there a DVD version available? Very much a must
have for me. Absolutely amazing performances from all involved (IIRC) and a
nice lesson on what the drummer can REALLY do from Ray Cooper Clark.
--
Merlin
Frank A Muller
> and a nice lesson on what the drummer can REALLY do from Ray Cooper Clark.
Sorry Merlin, you seem to be confusing John Cooper Clarke with Ray Cooper.
Frank A Muller
--
***************************************
If you feel the need to e-mail me
muller AT iinet DOT net DOT au
Steve Cobham
<merlin....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>"Steve Cobham" <st...@XSPAMXguitarsXMAPSX.powernet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:pk1ov09vnt8svomcd...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:35:04 GMT, Chris Bolus <ch...@bolus.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I've almost mastered
>> >"Stairway" from tab - well the main part anyway - but it's not really
>> >that challenging a piece is it?
>>
>> Having just watched an ARMS concert video - c.1983 with Pagey playing
>> it - the answer has to be a resounding YES ;)
>>
>> Was he out of it then or what?
>>
>
>Definitely out of it. That's one of my favourite videos, although I've only
>seen it on a friends VHS. Is there a DVD version available?
There is, but not an official one.
Try:
where it was torrented very recently. 4 Gb to DL but worth it.
>Very much a must
>have for me. Absolutely amazing performances from all involved (IIRC) and a
>nice lesson on what the drummer can REALLY do from Ray Cooper Clark.
That'll be Ray Cooper without the Clark!
As opposed to Cooper Clark with a John instead ;)
The prospect of Ray Cooper spouting poetry seems strangely
unappealing.
Steve at fivetrees
> The prospect of Ray Cooper spouting poetry seems strangely
> unappealing.
I *love* watching Ray Cooper play percussion - there's something about his
rather extravagant movement when playing something as simple as a tambourine
that always makes me grin ;).
Steve White
> Also, IME music "splits up" after you've been reading it for a few
> years - the actual pitches are no problem but rhythmic complexities
> can be a real challenge when you have no aural references.
It's the same with drum music - the mathematics doesn't really give you the
phrasing.
Notation can't include the subtle inflections in timing and emphasis.
> I'd recommend it to anybody who wants to develop quickly as a
> musician.
That's what drove me. A local pipe band who wanted me to start gigging 2
weeks after my first visit.
o Week 1 => I learned to read + transcribed their "beatings".
o Week 2 => I learned to play the parts + memorised them all.
I couldn't have done this any other way.
> In the end, of course, there's no substitute for a good ear and
> talent, but there seems to be no virtue in purposely remaining
> ignorant of musical theory and avoiding it as a somehow "corrupting"
> influence.
I get this a lot in the pipe band scene. At it's heart it's an "aural"
tradition and notation is way too clumsy to get anywhere near the real
timing - BUT - *whenever* someone has poo-pooed reading skills it's been
defensive reaction bourne out of their own short-comings ... be it playing
skills, listening skills, reading skills or, often, true understanding.
Cheers,
Steve W
Andrew
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:10:03 -0000, "Steve at fivetrees"
> <st...@NOSPAMTAfivetrees.com> wrote:
>
>>As Steve C said, it's certainly a useful tool to have. There are no
>>downsides - *except* if one relies on reading over and above using one's
>>ears. I've worked with horn sections and fiddle players who were utterly
>>lost without sheet music.
>
> I used to play in a big soul band - the horn players were amazing but
> every part had to be written out for them.
>
I suspect this is might be because if its written out and you can read it
and play it you tend not to remember it all, but use the dots as a reminder.
I find that a lot of my favourite songs I can play out of buskers books on
the keyboard or organ but although I've played them many times I still don't
remember them properly.
I find reading dots to play guitar more difficult as, in the absence of tab
there are several places you can play the same note and with chords and no
name of the chord above the staff you have to really recognise it rather
than read it. I think tab was invented and combined with musical notation
for this reason.
For playing guitar I have rarely found reading music useful because you can
use tab and your ears. If I play something I'm looking at the tab not the
music notation on the page. However, for keyboards, reading is essential
IMHO.
Andrew(lefty)
Merlin Fradley
"Frank A Muller" <Fr...@Home.In.Australia> wrote in message
news:363g9aF...@individual.net...
> Merlin Fradley wrote
>
> > and a nice lesson on what the drummer can REALLY do from Ray Cooper
Clark.
>
> Sorry Merlin, you seem to be confusing John Cooper Clarke with Ray Cooper.
>
Yes. I really should check my posts before I hit send. Especially that early
in the morning. I blame the IRs SA Online software for being too stressful!
;)
--
Merlin
Merlin Fradley
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 01:43:47 +0000 (UTC), "Merlin Fradley"
> <merlin....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Is there a DVD version available?
>
> There is, but not an official one.
>
> Try:
>
> http://www.easytree.org/
>
> where it was torrented very recently. 4 Gb to DL but worth it.
>
Thanks. Guess I may have to get my broadband sorted out soon!
> >Very much a must
> >have for me. Absolutely amazing performances from all involved (IIRC) and
a
> >nice lesson on what the drummer can REALLY do from Ray Cooper Clark.
>
> That'll be Ray Cooper without the Clark!
>
> As opposed to Cooper Clark with a John instead ;)
Whoops.
--
Merlin
JNugent
> "Steve Cobham" <st...@XSPAMXguitarsXMAPSX.powernet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Also, IME music "splits up" after you've been reading it for a few
>> years - the actual pitches are no problem but rhythmic complexities
>> can be a real challenge when you have no aural references.
> It's the same with drum music - the mathematics doesn't really give
> you the phrasing.
> Notation can't include the subtle inflections in timing and emphasis.
This was doubly proved to me when trying to input a simple keyboard part
(one hand only!) real time into a PC running the renowned Sibelius software.
The slight differences you are bound to get in timing (even when attempting
to play something as simple as straight crotchets) are manifested in the
software's results on screen as (say) a crotchet tied to a dotted
semiquaver, followed by an appropriately shorter note (with timing
differences measured intricately by the computer in terms of
hemi-demi-semiquavers.... In short, a mess.
Sibelius does have a reliable quantising feature to get over that of course,
so the problem does have a practical fix, but it illustrates the PP's point.
The sound (even when played back) sounded regular and even, but it wasn't.
>> I'd recommend it to anybody who wants to develop quickly as a
>> musician.
[ ... ]
>> In the end, of course, there's no substitute for a good ear and
>> talent, but there seems to be no virtue in purposely remaining
>> ignorant of musical theory and avoiding it as a somehow "corrupting"
>> influence.
> I get this a lot in the pipe band scene. At it's heart it's an "aural"
> tradition and notation is way too clumsy to get anywhere near the real
> timing - BUT - *whenever* someone has poo-pooed reading skills it's
> been defensive reaction bourne out of their own short-comings ... be
> it playing skills, listening skills, reading skills or, often, true
> understanding.
Absolutely. Even my own (very poor) reading skills are valuable because of
the other areas they open up. I can accept that it is, in principle,
possible to understand finer points of music theory without trying to learn
to read it, but in practice, given that "reading skills" are the method of
communicating musical ideas, I can't really see that it is possible to have
a grasp of theoretical concepts without some equivalent grasp of how they
are represented on the page - witness prevous discussions on this NG about
key signatures and things like whether E# shouldn't be regarded as F in the
key of F#.
Steve White
The lazy option is to rely on the dots - saves memorising the material.
Some parts, particularly harmonies are not that "memorable" - they're bits
of a wider structure and not that "logical" when considered in isolation.
Also, the music becomes a crutch and they get scared at the idea of doing
without it.
"Andrew" <d.d...@disney.com> wrote in message
news:b85Ld.2728$8B3...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> For playing guitar I have rarely found reading music useful because you
can
> use tab and your ears. If I play something I'm looking at the tab not the
> music notation on the page. However, for keyboards, reading is essential
> IMHO.
But learning to read music isn't just about learning material and saving on
memorising it.
It is a means to gain a deeper understanding of the nature of the notes and
the rhythms.
It's a means of communicating with other players.
It's ......
Cheers,
Steve W
Steve Cobham
>
>"Steve Cobham" <st...@XSPAMXguitarsXMAPSX.powernet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:91qnv0p78ps3ti2au...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:10:03 -0000, "Steve at fivetrees"
>> <st...@NOSPAMTAfivetrees.com> wrote:
>>
>>>As Steve C said, it's certainly a useful tool to have. There are no
>>>downsides - *except* if one relies on reading over and above using one's
>>>ears. I've worked with horn sections and fiddle players who were utterly
>>>lost without sheet music.
>>
>> I used to play in a big soul band - the horn players were amazing but
>> every part had to be written out for them.
>>
>
>I suspect this is might be because if its written out and you can read it
>and play it you tend not to remember it all, but use the dots as a reminder.
Nope, this was because they'd been taught music very formally, had the
music in front of them everytime they played anything - in the band or
otherwise - and had never once tried to play anything that wasn't.
It was almost as if unless the dots were there they couldn't perform.
I honestly don't think it was because they'd never had to play without
the dots, just that it wasn't part of their musical experience to play
without music.
Not, of course, that everyone should be able to improvise on their
chosen instrument. I just find it a little disquieting that people are
leaving what tuition they've had with complete reliance on written
music.
Steve at fivetrees
news:ctiihv$964$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I can accept that it is, in principle,
> possible to understand finer points of music theory without trying to
learn
> to read it, but in practice, given that "reading skills" are the method of
> communicating musical ideas, I can't really see that it is possible to
have
> a grasp of theoretical concepts without some equivalent grasp of how they
> are represented on the page - witness prevous discussions on this NG about
> key signatures and things like whether E# shouldn't be regarded as F in
the
> key of F#.
I disagree. Written music is C-centric, whereas theory is true in any key.
I *will* grant you that there are conventions (e.g. numbers of sharps and
flats) that are specific to written music (and that's partly why I'm so crap
at remembering those - I tend to think in terms of degrees of the scale,
i.e. 12345678, rather than note names. I have little interest in note names
;)).
But your example isn't one of those cases - i.e. I don't need paper to work
that one out.
YMMV ;).
Steve at fivetrees
> >I suspect this is might be because if its written out and you can read it
> >and play it you tend not to remember it all, but use the dots as a
reminder.
>
> Nope, this was because they'd been taught music very formally, had the
> music in front of them everytime they played anything - in the band or
> otherwise - and had never once tried to play anything that wasn't.
That was my experience too.
I have no problem with using the dots as a reminder - been known to do that
myself. But I do find it weird when someone can't play at all without them.
Steve White
news:Haednc4HtqX...@nildram.net...
> That was my experience too.
>
> I have no problem with using the dots as a reminder - been known to do
that
> myself. But I do find it weird when someone can't play at all without
them.
Same as that, but their performance improved 3 fold once they'd learnt to
play without dots. Their *playing* improved because they were completely
focused on the here and now and their stage presence improved because they
were free to look around and move around.
Cheers,
Steve W
JNugent
> "JNugent" <jnu...@ac30.spamfreeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> I can accept that it is, in principle,
>> possible to understand finer points of music theory without trying
>> to learn to read it, but in practice, given that "reading skills"
>> are the method of communicating musical ideas, I can't really see
>> that it is possible to have a grasp of theoretical concepts without
>> some equivalent grasp of how they are represented on the page -
>> witness prevous discussions on this NG about key signatures and
>> things like whether E# shouldn't be regarded as F in the key of F#.
> I disagree. Written music is C-centric, whereas theory is true in any
> key.
You still need to understand keys, sharps, flats, the relationships between
keys, the construction of chords, etc. It is hard to see how that could be
learned wthout any reference to notation.
> I *will* grant you that there are conventions (e.g. numbers of sharps
> and flats) that are specific to written music (and that's partly why
> I'm so crap at remembering those - I tend to think in terms of
> degrees of the scale, i.e. 12345678, rather than note names. I have
> little interest in note names ;)).
> But your example isn't one of those cases
It *is* one of those cases - because it is related to those conventions.
> - i.e. I don't need paper to work that one out.
That's the whole point. No-one who has studied a little notation needs paper
to work it out.
> YMMV ;).
Not by as much as you might have thought.
JNugent
> "Steve Cobham" <st...@XSPAMXguitarsXMAPSX.powernet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I suspect this is might be because if its written out and you can
>>> read it and play it you tend not to remember it all, but use the
>>> dots as a reminder.
>> Nope, this was because they'd been taught music very formally, had
>> the music in front of them everytime they played anything - in the
>> band or otherwise - and had never once tried to play anything that
>> wasn't.
> That was my experience too.
> I have no problem with using the dots as a reminder - been known to
> do that myself. But I do find it weird when someone can't play at all
> without them.
Formally-trained musicians can and sometimes do play without music when
occasion calls for it. It would, for instance, be uncommon for a top concert
pianist to sight-read a concerto - he/she will usually memorise the piece.
In fact, any soloist does the same - you never saw/see a music stand in
front of the Menuhins and the Du Pres. But orchestral section players have
on rely on music because of the world in which they operate - no
well-rehearsed and learned "repertoire" for them; they have to play whatever
they are asked to, at the drop of a hat, even if they have never heard the
piece before. That rubs off in the way that formal music lessons are given.
Rick Booth
> I disagree. Written music is C-centric, whereas theory is true in any key.
No it isn't, at least not to any significant degree. The only way in
which C differs from other keys in written music is that the key
signature happens to be empty.
- rfb
--
ri...@rfbooth.com http://www.rfbooth.com/ Made from non-edible parts.
I've noticed on the Epiphone website that they do a rather nice
flying-V bass guitar and have decided that I have to have one because
it's pointy. -- Andy Brooke exhibits honesty, in ukmg
Adrian Clark
Rick Booth <richar...@umist.ac.uk> wrote:
> Steve at fivetrees <st...@nospamtafivetrees.com> wrote:
> > I disagree. Written music is C-centric, whereas theory is true in any key.
>
> No it isn't, at least not to any significant degree. The only way in
> which C differs from other keys in written music is that the key
> signature happens to be empty.
Indeedly. If anything, you could say that (most) written music tends to
be G- or F-centric, because that's what the treble and bass clef were
designed to highlight.
Adrian
--
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.spaghetti-factory.co.uk http://www.sfocata.co.uk
For offgroup communication: sfocata <squiggle> gmail <ptang> com
Steve at fivetrees
news:3654mhF...@individual.net...
> Steve at fivetrees <st...@nospamtafivetrees.com> wrote:
> > I disagree. Written music is C-centric, whereas theory is true in any
key.
>
> No it isn't, at least not to any significant degree. The only way in
> which C differs from other keys in written music is that the key
> signature happens to be empty.
I've probably expressed myself badly. I was trying to separate the absolute
complications of note naming (sharps and flats, related to the natural
CDEFGABC convention of a) notation and b) the piano keyboard) from the
relative simplicity of melodic/harmonic theory, where a scale is a sequence
of tones and semitones. Given a tune in C, I'd have no big problem with note
naming. If I transposed the same tune to Eb, I'd struggle a bit with note
naming, but the theory behind it hasn't changed.
Is that any clearer? Probably not ;).
Steve Cobham
So, you're adopting a sort of numbering system?
Relative pitches, etc
Steve at fivetrees
> >I've probably expressed myself badly. I was trying to separate the
absolute
> >complications of note naming (sharps and flats, related to the natural
> >CDEFGABC convention of a) notation and b) the piano keyboard) from the
> >relative simplicity of melodic/harmonic theory, where a scale is a
sequence
> >of tones and semitones. Given a tune in C, I'd have no big problem with
note
> >naming. If I transposed the same tune to Eb, I'd struggle a bit with note
> >naming, but the theory behind it hasn't changed.
>
> So, you're adopting a sort of numbering system?
>
> Relative pitches, etc
Well, yes. I think in terms of intervals, not in terms of note names.
Not so weird, surely?
Adrian Clark
"Steve at fivetrees" <st...@NOSPAMTAfivetrees.com> wrote:
> Well, yes. I think in terms of intervals, not in terms of note names.
>
> Not so weird, surely?
Not the way I think about theory, at least not if I understand your
previous post correctly.
You said "where a scale is a sequence of tones and semitones"... do you
mean you think of a major scale as "TTSTTTS"? That would seem weird to
me, because I think of scales as a sequence of degrees, or relationships
to a root note... a major scale is R maj2 maj3 4 5 maj6 maj7 to me.
Adrian
--
________________________________________________________________
http://www.spaghetti-factory.co.uk --- http://www.sfocata.co.uk
nog
> "Steve Cobham" <st...@XSPAMXguitarsXMAPSX.powernet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2tdsv09hmthp5v6gf...@4ax.com...
>> So, you're adopting a sort of numbering system?
>>
>> Relative pitches, etc
>
> Well, yes. I think in terms of intervals, not in terms of note names.
>
> Not so weird, surely?
That's pretty much how the so-called Nashville Numbering
system works, ain' it?
Steve Cobham
Not weird, but not how I do it :)
Do you think in terms of "hmmm, moving from the root to the fifth
flattened here" or "hmmm, playing E, need to go to Bb"?
Or, indeed, neither? ;)
I find myself always being aware of what key I'm in and where the
other useful notes are in the context of which scale and/or chord
tones I might need to move to.
So, in E I'm thinking F# (m), G# (m), A (M), etc., to preserve some
sort of diatonicism should I need it and also adding in the flattened
five, for example, to play in context.
Steve at fivetrees
> Do you think in terms of "hmmm, moving from the root to the fifth
> flattened here"
Yes.
> or "hmmm, playing E, need to go to Bb"?
Definitely not ;).
> I find myself always being aware of what key I'm in and where the
> other useful notes are in the context of which scale and/or chord
> tones I might need to move to.
>
> So, in E I'm thinking F# (m), G# (m), A (M), etc., to preserve some
> sort of diatonicism should I need it and also adding in the flattened
> five, for example, to play in context.
Ditto, but I only think in terms of flattened fifth in your example. I'd
have to stop and think about the name of the note.
Steve at fivetrees
news:real.address-C29E...@individual.net...
> You said "where a scale is a sequence of tones and semitones"... do you
> mean you think of a major scale as "TTSTTTS"? That would seem weird to
> me, because I think of scales as a sequence of degrees, or relationships
> to a root note... a major scale is R maj2 maj3 4 5 maj6 maj7 to me.
I really am expressing myself badly. I do indeed think in terms of degrees
of the scale, as you do. In do doing I'm thinking of intervals, whether
related to the root (mostly) or to each other (TTS etc).
Adrian Clark
"Steve at fivetrees" <st...@NOSPAMTAfivetrees.com> wrote:
I do indeed think in terms of degrees
> of the scale, as you do. In do doing I'm thinking of intervals, whether
> related to the root (mostly) or to each other (TTS etc).
Right, gotcha. I only really do the former, although I guess I'm always
subconsciously aware of the distance between two notes, as a result of
knowing how they both relate to the root.
adrian
Steve at fivetrees
> In article <3J6dndyi_Kq...@nildram.net>,
> "Steve at fivetrees" <st...@NOSPAMTAfivetrees.com> wrote:
>
> I do indeed think in terms of degrees
> > of the scale, as you do. In do doing I'm thinking of intervals, whether
> > related to the root (mostly) or to each other (TTS etc).
>
> Right, gotcha. I only really do the former, although I guess I'm always
> subconsciously aware of the distance between two notes, as a result of
> knowing how they both relate to the root.
Yeah, that's about the same with me.
My point kinda was that I'm really *not* aware of the note names, or worried
too much about how it'll look on paper. Or indeed even what key it's in.
Rick Booth
> "Rick Booth" <richar...@umist.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:3654mhF...@individual.net...
> > Steve at fivetrees <st...@nospamtafivetrees.com> wrote:
> > > I disagree. Written music is C-centric, whereas theory is true in any
> key.
> >
> > No it isn't, at least not to any significant degree. The only way in
> > which C differs from other keys in written music is that the key
> > signature happens to be empty.
> I've probably expressed myself badly. I was trying to separate the absolute
> complications of note naming (sharps and flats, related to the natural
> CDEFGABC convention of a) notation and b) the piano keyboard) from the
> relative simplicity of melodic/harmonic theory, where a scale is a sequence
> of tones and semitones. Given a tune in C, I'd have no big problem with note
> naming. If I transposed the same tune to Eb, I'd struggle a bit with note
> naming, but the theory behind it hasn't changed.
That's much clearer, especially with your later explanations of what you
actually mean ;). Of course, as you know, this has absolutely nothing to
do with music notation (in the sense of manuscript), which is what I (and
others) took you to mean - the key signature allows you to think of
notation just as a vertical series of scale tones.
I also (almost always) think in terms of intervals from the root when
playing, rather than note names - so, apparently like Adrian, my primary
concepts of (say) a natural minor scale is as root, major second, minor
third, perfect fourth and fifth, minor sixth and seventh, or (even more
relevantly for standard notation) as (a mode of, in some sense) a key.
I decidedly don't think of it as a series of tone and semitone intervals
- to my mind, that TTSTTTS thinking is purely and simply broken. It's
true, but it's the sort of tree that hides the wood very effectively.
- rfb
--
ri...@rfbooth.com http://www.rfbooth.com/ May become hot when heated.
When my main Inbox folder hits 2000 messages, I sit bolt upright for 16
hours and cause it to contain less than 200 messages.
-- Jamie Zawinski on time management
Steve at fivetrees
> I decidedly don't think of it as a series of tone and semitone intervals
> - to my mind, that TTSTTTS thinking is purely and simply broken. It's
> true, but it's the sort of tree that hides the wood very effectively.
To continue my "Let's be clearer" theme, I didn't mean to imply that I
thought in terms of TTSTTTS primarily - again, that's me explaining that I
think in terms of intervals (mostly wrt the root), badly ;).
Rick Booth
>> I decidedly don't think of it as a series of tone and semitone intervals
>> - to my mind, that TTSTTTS thinking is purely and simply broken. It's
>> true, but it's the sort of tree that hides the wood very effectively.
> To continue my "Let's be clearer" theme, I didn't mean to imply that I
> thought in terms of TTSTTTS primarily - again, that's me explaining that I
> think in terms of intervals (mostly wrt the root), badly ;).
Yeah, I'd got that from other posts already :).
The other way I think, which I suspect is now the way I actually work
almost all the time, particularly at speed, is in terms of patterns -
both covering the whole fretboard and in "boxes" of half a dozen frets or
so. Within the shapes my fingers-to-mind's-ear connections are good
enough that I can easily sing along with my playing even if I can't hear
it. I'm not then thinking about scale tones, note names, or anything
else, just *music*. This makes me very happy indeed :).
- rfb
--
ri...@rfbooth.com http://www.rfbooth.com/ Don't try this at home.
September 25th: Discovered lots of things about Dynamic HTML.
Notably that almost every site attempting to use it is crap.
-- Alan Cox's Diary
Andy
> Hello gents
>
> I'm thinking about learning to read music as I'm coming across a fair bit of
> material that isn't in TAB (such as this Jim Hall solo
> http://www.joefinn.net/html/jim_hall_page.html ), it's obviously a good
> skill to have as a musician and well I like a challenge. I'd be doing it
> with my guitar teacher who does indeed read music.
>
> I'm not quite sure what to expect really. Is it a case of once you can you
> always can? Or is it a skill you must maintain and develop throughout. As in
> well I've learnt to read words, I can just do that and I can't ever imagine
> I'd forget how! I don't have to practice reading words etc
>
> Also how long does it take to become fluent? I have weekly lessons and on
> average I probably practice about 10 hours a week which is probably about a
> third of my free time.
>
> Who can read around these parts and do you find it useful in your guitar
> studies?
>
> Jim
>
>
I find TAB really unrelaiable and hard to read compared to traditional
scores. I'm a rubbish sight-reader too!
Learning to sight-read fast on the guitar is a hell of a skill and takes
time to get solid. Even the best guitarists have trouble sight-reading
the trickier classical pieces.
It's invaluable to be able to understand the stave though - and that
will only take you five minutes! Go do it now!
The better your reading the faster you will be able to learn pieces. The
more you practice the better you will get. You will learn at your own
pace - just like with everything else so I can't give you a time-scale.
Enjoy!
Steve at fivetrees
> The other way I think, which I suspect is now the way I actually work
> almost all the time, particularly at speed, is in terms of patterns -
> both covering the whole fretboard and in "boxes" of half a dozen frets or
> so. Within the shapes my fingers-to-mind's-ear connections are good
> enough that I can easily sing along with my playing even if I can't hear
> it. I'm not then thinking about scale tones, note names, or anything
> else, just *music*. This makes me very happy indeed :).
That's interesting. That's basically how I learned to play (finding boxes
and expanding/connecting them), long before I had any idea what degrees of
the scale I was actually playing. I suspect this is true of many of us.
Listening back recently to recordings made before I had any clue about such
things as scale degrees, I'm a *bit* surprised to hear that my playing
hasn't actually changed all that much. This is either very good or very bad
;). Actually, I suspect it's because I still have the same ears, and I'm
still the same person making similar, if slightly more educated (and hence
wider, I believe) choices. Getting a bit of a grip on theory has enabled me
to understand (and communicate, and expand on, and take liberties with) what
my ears are leading my fingers to do.
I do have a little bit of sympathy (only a little) for the
theory-is-limiting viewpoint, in that I've noticed I took (and got away
with) some big risks back then, dictated by my ears, which i might not dare
now that I know what they're called and how ugly they should be ;). OTOH,
I'm older and probably less adventurous. And I do have *more* conscious
options now - through learning some theory. I'm less dependent on constant
inspiration and serendipity. (Although they still play a part.)
Back on topic: I do wish there was a notation system that more directly
reflected the way I (we) perceive what we're playing (degrees of the
scale-wise). What I was trying to say earlier is that I found the
C-major-centric (top stave, Adrian ;)) nature of notation added all kinds of
complications (sharps, flats, note naming) that are part of the notation
system, and not really related to music per se. I had piano lessons for ages
as a kid; not sure we ever really got beyond the weirdnesses of notation and
onto the nature of music. Frustrating. I only realised the simplicity of the
major scale reference, and the beauty/naturalness of the harmonic series,
much later. I felt a bit cheated.
I guess my real point here is that learning to read music is not necessarily
the same thing as learning theory. If it is, great. But I think I'd have to
say that, IMO, theory is more useful in most forms of modern guitar music
than learning how to deal with the weirdnesses of notation. (But I might be
wrong. If I was a great reader, as opposed to a merely barely adequate one,
perhaps I'd learn stuff I haven't. Dunno.)
Re singing along with playing: I happen to think this is an excellent
exercise to master. It puts the choices back in the head, not in the
fingers. I find myself imagining and hearing myself playing, and finding
limitations with my fingers through what I hear myself choosing, and then
working on those limitations without a guitar... if that makes any sense ;).
With apologies for a bit of a late-night introspective ramble,
icarusi
> You said "where a scale is a sequence of tones and semitones"... do you
> mean you think of a major scale as "TTSTTTS"? That would seem weird to
> me, because I think of scales as a sequence of degrees, or relationships
> to a root note... a major scale is R maj2 maj3 4 5 maj6 maj7 to me.
I tend to memorise scales as w,h,w,w,h,h+w,h (harmonic minor,
w=whole-tone/tone h= half-tone/semitone) for instance, but chords better as
scale numbers from the root, probably to make sense of chord spellings.
Icarusi
--
remove the 00 to reply
Rick Booth
> reflected the way I (we) perceive what we're playing (degrees of the
> scale-wise). What I was trying to say earlier is that I found the
> C-major-centric (top stave, Adrian ;)) nature of notation added all kinds of
> complications (sharps, flats, note naming) that are part of the notation
> system, and not really related to music per se.
But the point that both Adrian and I have been trying and apparently
failing to make is that notation *is not in any significant way*
"C-centric". It really, really isn't. All the key signature does is (as
the name suggests, funnily enough) is tell you what key you're in. After
that notation is EXACTLY one position on the stave per scale degree, and
the only (small) difference what key you're in makes is how you notate
accidentals. That's the whole point and beauty of it. Note naming might
be c-centric, but that's completely different and not actually related to
notation.
> I had piano lessons for ages as a kid; not sure we ever really got
> beyond the weirdnesses of notation and onto the nature of music.
> Frustrating.
Ah, now the piano *is* C-centric. I suspect this is where your
confusion's coming from.
- rfb
--
ri...@rfbooth.com http://www.rfbooth.com/ 100% recycled electrons.
There *must* be a way of getting him over here. I'll even pretend to be
a sweet-faced child dying of an incurable disease, if it'll help.
-- Adrian Clark trying to lure Mike Keneally, in ukmg.
icarusi
news:odWdnUYLDNc...@nildram.net...
> Re singing along with playing: I happen to think this is an excellent
> exercise to master. It puts the choices back in the head, not in the
> fingers. I find myself imagining and hearing myself playing, and finding
> limitations with my fingers through what I hear myself choosing, and then
> working on those limitations without a guitar... if that makes any sense
;).
Another idea is to download the Biab files of the 'real book' (and other
tunes) from Wes Dick's website and play along/improvise over them. The tunes
which modulate on virtualy every bar are real bastards!
Nigel Cass
>> Back on topic: I do wish there was a notation system that more directly
>> reflected the way I (we) perceive what we're playing (degrees of the
>> scale-wise). What I was trying to say earlier is that I found the
>> C-major-centric (top stave, Adrian ;)) nature of notation added all kinds
>> of
>> complications (sharps, flats, note naming) that are part of the notation
>> system, and not really related to music per se.
>
work out what point fivetrees was trying to make :)
I presume what you're trying to say is that you'd like to see a system where
the notated interval between two notes in a piece is always the same
regardless of what key you're in? -i.e, you don't have to think oh wait a
minute in this key that note should be sharpened and hence the interval I'm
seeing on paper is actually a semitone smaller (also dependent on how many
other notes are sharpened in the given key if it's a wide interval too) -
The only way to achieve this would be to have a stave or a gap per note or
some new form of more TABesque notation perhaps. I have to admit though my
own opinion (and I really aren't a theory expert at all - ask rick!!) is
that the current form of notation is great if you are thinking in degrees of
a scale. It's simply a case of knowing that for every position higher or
lower than the note you're playing now you move that many scale degrees
within the key you're playing. It makes very simple sight reading of
melodies achievable and fun! :)
> But the point that both Adrian and I have been trying and apparently
> failing to make is that notation *is not in any significant way*
> "C-centric". It really, really isn't. All the key signature does is (as
> the name suggests, funnily enough) is tell you what key you're in. After
> that notation is EXACTLY one position on the stave per scale degree, and
> the only (small) difference what key you're in makes is how you notate
> accidentals. That's the whole point and beauty of it. Note naming might
> be c-centric, but that's completely different and not actually related to
> notation.
As mentioned above I think perhaps intervals rather than scale degrees are
what's causing the confusion here maybe?
What rick said is perfectly correct in that in notation there is one
position per scale degree, so if as you say you do think purely in degrees
of a scale, there should be no reason for any confusion whatever the key
you're in. And also as rick said the notation is not C-centric whatsoever
except for the fact there's no sharps or flats which i guess makes it feel
more intuitive. However if you look at a piece of music and are trying to
play purely by intervals from the current note I can see how it would lead
to massive problems as the interval between any two positions on the stave
is different dependent on key.
Nige.
p.s, I'm pretty sure I've just muddied the water even more knowing
me..........
Steve at fivetrees
news:ctq9q9$mpn$1...@north.jnrs.ja.net...
> Been reading this thread with some interest. Admittedly initially to try
and
> work out what point fivetrees was trying to make :)
Oh dear. Perhaps I should shut up.
Steve at fivetrees
> Steve at fivetrees <st...@nospamtafivetrees.com> wrote:
> > Back on topic: I do wish there was a notation system that more directly
> > reflected the way I (we) perceive what we're playing (degrees of the
> > scale-wise). What I was trying to say earlier is that I found the
> > C-major-centric (top stave, Adrian ;)) nature of notation added all
kinds of
> > complications (sharps, flats, note naming) that are part of the notation
> > system, and not really related to music per se.
>
> But the point that both Adrian and I have been trying and apparently
> failing to make is that notation *is not in any significant way*
> "C-centric". It really, really isn't. All the key signature does is (as
> the name suggests, funnily enough) is tell you what key you're in. After
> that notation is EXACTLY one position on the stave per scale degree, and
> the only (small) difference what key you're in makes is how you notate
> accidentals. That's the whole point and beauty of it. Note naming might
> be c-centric, but that's completely different and not actually related to
> notation.
Point very much taken. Been thinking about this, doing some googling (during
which I discovered that solfege has all kinds of note names beyond do-re-mi
etc: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solfege - rather fun).
You're right, of course. Probably my beef comes down to how it was taught,
and maybe that's changed too. I had piano lessons (late 60s) and classical
guitar lessons (mid 70s), and in both cases the emphasis was hugely on
learning the staff/stave, and on note naming i.e. an absolute system. It
wasn't until many years later that I realised that the relative system
(degrees of the scale) was much simpler, clearer, and gave me an
understanding that was very much obscured (for me) by the absolute system. I
strongly wished that I'd been given this insight earlier.
I also did a short/intensive course at MIT in the early 90s; the same thing
applied there - BUT it was only one module amongst many, and by that time
I'd understood the relative system, so I had a bit of a clue.
The point I'm clearly failing to make is that (IMO) the absolute nature of
the staff (and the emphasis on note-naming) brings all sorts of
complications that are part of the notation system, and nothing inherently
to do with music.
icarusi
> Ah, now the piano *is* C-centric. I suspect this is where your
> confusion's coming from.
Notation is *diatonic scale* 'centred-on-C' too. Everything else which isn't
part of a diatonic C scale (or a mode with a root on one of its notes) needs
qualifications of sharps, flats (or naturals).
OTOH for transposing instruments the pitch of C is transposed so in theory
C's pitch isn't an absolute for 'notation' but still 'diatonic-centred'.
Rick Booth
> Rick Booth <richar...@umist.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:36ai30F...@individual.net...
> > Ah, now the piano *is* C-centric. I suspect this is where your
> > confusion's coming from.
> Notation is *diatonic scale* 'centred-on-C' too.
I'll certainly agree that notation's very biased towards traditional
western harmony - anything that doesn't fit into the church modes doesn't
easily fit here either. In particular, blues isn't particularly
notation-friendly for exactly this reason.
- rfb
--
ri...@rfbooth.com http://www.rfbooth.com/ Always read the label.
Rick needs new calipers for his crippled legs and I have a problem with
the nose powder. -- Adrian Clark raising funds in ukmg.
Frank A Muller
> Oh dear. Perhaps I should shut up.
No. You are entitled to state things as you perceive them. Whether you are
right or wrong is another matter. But shut up? Never.
Frank A Muller
Steve at fivetrees
news:42016a38$0$30210$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Thanks for that; appreciated. My concern is that I might be confusing
people, esp. the OP. My original intention was encouragement to the OP,
along the lines of:
- Don't be discouraged if notation seems confusing and C-centric (to a
greater or smaller degree, which seems to me to be the only point we're
having trouble with) - it certainly seems that way to me ;).
- Don't let this put you off learning music theory - you don't necessarily
need notation to do so.
- If, OTOH, you *don't* find notation confusing (as I do), that's
*wonderful*.
In brief - go for it, and I'm sure we'll collectively do whatever we can to
support you.
[I might take a back seat in this, though - my viewpoint is clearly not
universally shared, and there are others here with certainly more (or more
recent) knowledge of the subject than me. (And Rick is without doubt a far
better teacher and communicator than me!)]
Frank A Muller
> - Don't be discouraged if notation seems confusing and C-centric (to a
> greater or smaller degree, which seems to me to be the only point we're
> having trouble with) - it certainly seems that way to me ;).
I quote from an on-line resource: "The treble clef is also called the G-Clef
because symbol at the beginning of the staff (a stylised letter G) encircles
the second line of the staff indicating that the line is G1 or G above
middle C"
So without sharps or flats in the key signature, you could happily play a
tune in the key of G, but instead of playing a Dmajor as you would expect,
you'd play a Dminor - unless an accidental F# was thrown in for the
occasional bar where Dmajor (or indeed Bminor or A6) is called for.
So a key signature without sharps or flats doesn't necessarily mean you're
playing in the key of C, it simply means there are no sharps or flats in
this piece unless they are thrown in as an accidental. We tend to feel more
comfortable by saying "no sharps or flats - were playing in C, boys..." but
that may not hold true.
Frank A Muller
Steve White
> So a key signature without sharps or flats doesn't necessarily mean you're
> playing in the key of C, it simply means there are no sharps or flats in
> this piece unless they are thrown in as an accidental. We tend to feel
more
> comfortable by saying "no sharps or flats - were playing in C, boys..."
but
> that may not hold true.
A key sig with no sharps / flats means you are playing notes *from a C
scale*. If the notation describes only a melody then the chords could be all
sorts of things. So for instance, you could be playing a blues in A and the
melody notes are just A C D E and G. This is controlled by the person who
wrote the score. I know I've done this sort of thing before when scoring
brass parts - as it means I needed fewer accidentals and therefore it was
easier for the brass players to read. However, and it's a bit however, this
also gives a very false impression of context in which those notes lie, so
anyone working from the dots and wishing to improvise within the piece,
could well be thrown completely.
Also, as noted by Rick, "from a C scale* could mean any of the various
modes.
Cheers,
Steve W
clive murray
> I'll certainly agree that notation's very biased towards traditional
> western harmony - anything that doesn't fit into the church modes doesn't
> easily fit here either. In particular, blues isn't particularly
> notation-friendly for exactly this reason.
aye, and the notion of "play the 4th" or "the 5th" becomes a little
muddied when using the traditional blues scale which features the
perfect 4th, the perfect 5th, *and* the flattened 5th.
--c.
Adrian Clark
clive murray <earth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> aye, and the notion of "play the 4th" or "the 5th" becomes a little
> muddied when using the traditional blues scale which features the
> perfect 4th, the perfect 5th, *and* the flattened 5th.
Yeah, blues solos are a nightmare to notate. For a start, you generally
have to use a major key (unless it's an obvious Peter Green-style minor
blues tunes) but the melody/lead notes will probably be from a
mixolydian/dorian hybrid... minor 7th at the very least, and probably a
few minor 3rds as well.
And then there's the 4-b5-5 thing. I usually notate the #4/b5 according
to whether it's acting as a substitute for the 4 or 5, so in the key of
E, you'd get A+Bb or A#+B. However, where all three notes are present,
you just can't avoid the mess of accidentals.
Adrian
Steve White
> And then there's the 4-b5-5 thing. I usually notate the #4/b5 according
> to whether it's acting as a substitute for the 4 or 5, so in the key of
> E, you'd get A+Bb or A#+B. However, where all three notes are present,
> you just can't avoid the mess of accidentals.
Isn't the convention to use either # or b throughout a section rather than
mixing them ... or did I just make that up?
Cheers,
Steve W
Grant
"Adrian Clark" <real.a...@sigbelow.com> wrote in message
news:real.address-D0F9...@individual.net...
> clive murray <earth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> aye, and the notion of "play the 4th" or "the 5th" becomes a little
>> muddied when using the traditional blues scale which features the
>> perfect 4th, the perfect 5th, *and* the flattened 5th.
>
>
> Yeah, blues solos are a nightmare to notate. For a start, you generally
> have to use a major key (unless it's an obvious Peter Green-style minor
> blues tunes) but the melody/lead notes will probably be from a
> mixolydian/dorian hybrid... minor 7th at the very least, and probably a
> few minor 3rds as well.
>
> And then there's the 4-b5-5 thing. I usually notate the #4/b5 according
> to whether it's acting as a substitute for the 4 or 5, so in the key of
> E, you'd get A+Bb or A#+B. However, where all three notes are present,
> you just can't avoid the mess of accidentals.
>
>
I think standard notation was more useful for classical stuff, or
representing early 20th Century popular music that people would play on the
piano at home. But these days we've got access to original recordings & tab
which can more accurately represent what's eg on a blues record - the 3rd is
somewhere between the minor & major thirds, the b5 is somewhere between the
4th & 5th etc (must be a nightmare notating blues harp or slide guitar).
Learning standard notation & basic music theory can be a backward step in
the early stages - when I first learned barre E I was moving it
instinctively around the neck - E, G, A, B, C, D. Then when I read some
stuff about theory I 'realised' this was wrong & I should stick to a major
key harmony, so my music suddenly had all the dramatic weight of nursery
rhymes. The best advice is probably the cliche: you learn the rules, then
you break 'em (& keep an open mind).
Steve White
news:5tuMd.6461$8B3....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> I think standard notation was more useful for classical stuff, or
> representing early 20th Century popular music that people would play on
the
> piano at home. But these days we've got access to original recordings &
tab
> which can more accurately represent what's eg on a blues record - the 3rd
is
> somewhere between the minor & major thirds, the b5 is somewhere between
the
> 4th & 5th etc (must be a nightmare notating blues harp or slide guitar).
>
> Learning standard notation & basic music theory can be a backward step in
> the early stages - when I first learned barre E I was moving it
> instinctively around the neck - E, G, A, B, C, D. Then when I read some
> stuff about theory I 'realised' this was wrong & I should stick to a major
> key harmony, so my music suddenly had all the dramatic weight of nursery
> rhymes. The best advice is probably the cliche: you learn the rules, then
> you break 'em (& keep an open mind).
Oops. There we go.
If you want to fart about in your own little world then noone will stop you
... and you can create some great music that way ... and you don't need
notation, tab or anything else.
If you want to communicate stuff with other *guitarists* then the
combination of tab and or recordings will do just fine ... but they'll need
to both hear it and see it for it to make *any* sense. Tab alone won't do
it.
The b5 is not "somewhere" between the 4th and the 5th - it's the semitone in
the middle.
As soon as you start talking to other musicians it becomes useful to know
what you are talking about. If you want to write stuff down for
non-guitarists then you'd be better of doing it with notation.
And those crap results you got when you first learnt theory / notation ...
I'm sorry to have to break this to you ... but they were f*** all to do with
the theory or the notation rules. Neither theory nor notation constrains you
to play nursery rhymes. They're just a means of rationalising and
documenting what you create in your hear ... or your hands ... nothing more.
Steve W
Adrian Clark
"Steve White" <st...@sjNOSPAMTAVERYMUCHwhite.plus.com> wrote:
> Isn't the convention to use either # or b throughout a section rather than
> mixing them ... or did I just make that up?
Yeah, that's the general rule of thumb. The problem with blues is that
the same note can take on different functions from bar to bar, depending
on the underlying chord, so I like to try and reflect that if I can.
Steve White
> Yeah, that's the general rule of thumb. The problem with blues is that
> the same note can take on different functions from bar to bar, depending
> on the underlying chord, so I like to try and reflect that if I can.
Yeah, but no, but yeah, but .... just because the note is acting as a #4
doesn't mean there should be a should be a # sign on the notation. Surely
the # here means two completely different things. The first (#4) indicates
it's function / context as described by music theory. The second (say F#)
just says what frequency it is. Or, once again, I could be missing
something. Probably lots. I gave up on rec.music.theory some time ago.
Cheers,
Steve W
JNugent
> "Adrian Clark" <real.a...@sigbelow.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, that's the general rule of thumb. The problem with blues is
>> that the same note can take on different functions from bar to bar,
>> depending on the underlying chord, so I like to try and reflect that
>> if I can.
> Yeah, but no, but yeah, but .... just because the note is acting as a
> #4 doesn't mean there should be a should be a # sign on the notation.
If you don't accidental-sharp (say) the A (in E major), it'll be played by a
reader as an A natural. The same for the B - if you don't mark it flat,
it'll be played natural ('cos that's what the key signature of E major tells
you to do).
> Surely the # here means two completely different things. The first
> (#4) indicates it's function / context as described by music theory.
> The second (say F#) just says what frequency it is. Or, once again, I
> could be missing something.
Key signatures (which are a set of instructions).
Steve White
news:ctu9o5$2lp$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Steve White wrote:
>
> > "Adrian Clark" <real.a...@sigbelow.com> wrote:
> >> Yeah, that's the general rule of thumb. The problem with blues is
> >> that the same note can take on different functions from bar to bar,
> >> depending on the underlying chord, so I like to try and reflect that
> >> if I can.
>
> > Yeah, but no, but yeah, but .... just because the note is acting as a
> > #4 doesn't mean there should be a should be a # sign on the notation.
>
> If you don't accidental-sharp (say) the A (in E major), it'll be played by
a
> reader as an A natural. The same for the B - if you don't mark it flat,
> it'll be played natural ('cos that's what the key signature of E major
tells
> you to do).
Yep - agreed. That wasn't what I was getting at - perhaps my post wasn't
very clear.
What I meant was that the accidental on the note depends upon the note's
pitch and (obviously!) the key signature, but *not* the note's *function*.
IE. Where the note could have 2 names, eg. A# and Bb, the choice would be
driven by the key signature not the function of the note in the chord.
Eg. Playing the b3 against an G chord in the key of G ... would be notated
as A# and not Bb ... sure it's acting as a flat third in relation to the G
chord ... but you wouldn't normally have a piece of music with both sharps
and flats in the same bar ... or would you?
Cheers,
Steve W
Frank A Muller
> Eg. Playing the b3 against an G chord in the key of G ... would be notated
> as A# and not Bb ... sure it's acting as a flat third in relation to the G
> chord ... but you wouldn't normally have a piece of music with both sharps
> and flats in the same bar ... or would you?
The case you cite here Steve really manages to muddy the waters quite
nicely. :-)
I presume that particular note would be taken in context with the preceeding
and succeeding notes. If you are in an ascending sequence, then I think you
would sharpen it.
I must confess that my limited knowledge was passed about 50 posts back!
Frank A Muller
Saint Ram Bone
It appears that ever since the US FBI siezed the UK Indymedia servers,
I can not post a message. It is ironic because I have suffered the
same atrocities that a Jewish bank examiner would at the beginning of
Nazi Germany.
Search for Mobile Audit Club and listen to some of my rant and rage
music with compilations of some abuse with a How to Video on cooking
Hash brownies.
Where do we go from here? The people in America for the most part do
not care for each other and our government is attacking us. My
ancestors likely did not want to fight the English, as there is a
hiding place near where some of my ancestors are from, who sought to
not to get involved. Now, I cry for help among the Gorilla-Wolves of
war.
Mobile Audit Club
Kurt Brown, alias SainTramBone
Frank A Muller
<snips everything>
No sorry, we're talking about Learning To Read Music here.
Next contestant please.
Frank A Muller
Grant
"Steve White" <st...@sjNOSPAMTAVERYMUCHwhite.plus.com> wrote in message
news:420278a0$0$7913$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
> "Grant" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:5tuMd.6461$8B3....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> The b5 is not "somewhere" between the 4th and the 5th - it's the semitone
> in
> the middle.
>
Clearly I haven't explained myself well - I meant that, say on a blues in A,
the '3rd' could be C bent a quarter tone and the 'b5' could be D or D# bent
a quarter tone. Tab can represent quarter tone bends, but AFAIK notation
would simplify this to the nearest semitone.
> As soon as you start talking to other musicians it becomes useful to know
> what you are talking about. If you want to write stuff down for
> non-guitarists then you'd be better of doing it with notation.
>
> And those crap results you got when you first learnt theory / notation ...
> I'm sorry to have to break this to you ... but they were f*** all to do
> with
> the theory or the notation rules. Neither theory nor notation constrains
> you
> to play nursery rhymes. They're just a means of rationalising and
> documenting what you create in your hear ... or your hands ... nothing
> more.
>
I didn't mean that theory was at fault - it was my interpretation that these
were rules rather than guidelines.
Andrew
minor I would expect to see that written as Bb as that is the usual thinking
behind minors chords i.e. you flatten a 3rd rather than sharpen a second to
create the minor chord. Likewise, if you were in the key of F (one flat: Bb)
and a D chord was required where there was a F sharp in the melody I would
expect that to be written as F# not Gb because a D chord is thought of as D,
F#,A not as D,Gb,A. It seems to be accepted musical grammar.
Now, just to really confuse everyone to my level of confusion, what is the
conventional thinking for making a score key signature Gb major or F# major?
One has 6 #'s the other 6 b's. Two pianists could sit side by side each
playing scores (of the *same* tune) in those two different keys and yet they
would be playing the same notes! My brain hurts!.
Andrew(lefty)
aka. Muddy The Waters
Steve White
news:qUHMd.7027$8B3....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> If the intention of playing a flat 3rd against a G chord was to make it G
> minor I would expect to see that written as Bb as that is the usual
thinking
> behind minors chords i.e. you flatten a 3rd rather than sharpen a second
to
> create the minor chord. Likewise, if you were in the key of F (one flat:
Bb)
> and a D chord was required where there was a F sharp in the melody I would
> expect that to be written as F# not Gb because a D chord is thought of as
D,
> F#,A not as D,Gb,A. It seems to be accepted musical grammar.
Obviously I'm not making my point very clear. I'm contending that the
function of the note and it's name are completely different things.
Key of B major (5 sharps)
The iii chord = D#m ... not Ebm because we're working in sharps!
The minor third of that chord is F# ... not Gb ... because it's name on the
stave is dictated by the key signature not it's function.
The F sharp is functioning as a flat 3rd (or minor third.)
F sharp is it's name on the stave.
Flat 3rd is it's function within the chord.
They're 2 different things.
... I think.
Cheers,
Steve W
Andrew
Yep , it's the "musical grammar" , a bit like masculine and feminine nouns
in French. They just are that way.
Andrew(lefty)
(Not wanting to open a debate on the French language)
Adrian Clark
"Steve White" <st...@sjNOSPAMTAVERYMUCHwhite.plus.com> wrote:
> What I meant was that the accidental on the note depends upon the note's
> pitch and (obviously!) the key signature, but *not* the note's *function*.
Yep, my post was a bit unclear there. What I meant was that I notate a
non-scale note according to its function in a piece. So, if we're in the
key of E major and the guitarist hits the note between A and B, I could
either notate it as A# or Bb, depending on whether it seems to be
functioning as a sharpened 4th or a flattened 5th.
Similarly, a C could be an augmented 5th (B#) or a flattened 6th (C
natural).
Isn't Tab great? ;-)
George Weston
> Isn't Tab great? ;-)
>
>
> Adrian
Seconded!
(together, of course, with lyric/chord-sheets in my case)
George
David Raleigh Arnold
> Hello gents
>
> I'm thinking about learning to read music as I'm coming across a fair bit
> of material that isn't in TAB (such as this Jim Hall solo
> http://www.joefinn.net/html/jim_hall_page.html ), it's obviously a good
> skill to have as a musician and well I like a challenge. I'd be doing it
> with my guitar teacher who does indeed read music.
>
> I'm not quite sure what to expect really. Is it a case of once you can you
> always can? Or is it a skill you must maintain and develop throughout. As
> in well I've learnt to read words, I can just do that and I can't ever
> imagine I'd forget how! I don't have to practice reading words etc
>
> Also how long does it take to become fluent?
It's more important how long it takes to become useful. Not long.
Count count count count count. That's not the main thing, it's the
only thing. You've only got a few notes. That's nothing. It's the
rhythm that just keeps on giving. daveA
--
The only technical exercises for guitar which are worthy of the
instrument consist in "Dynamic Guitar Technique". I promise miracles.
Get it at: http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html
daveA David Raleigh Arnold dra..at..openguitar.com
Steve Cobham
<saintr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>It appears that ever since the US FBI siezed the UK Indymedia servers,
>I can not post a message. It is ironic because I have suffered the
>same atrocities that a Jewish bank examiner would at the beginning of
>Nazi Germany.
>
>Search for Mobile Audit Club and listen to some of my rant and rage
>music with compilations of some abuse with a How to Video on cooking
>Hash brownies.
>
>Where do we go from here? The people in America for the most part do
>not care for each other and our government is attacking us. My
>ancestors likely did not want to fight the English, as there is a
>hiding place near where some of my ancestors are from, who sought to
>not to get involved. Now, I cry for help among the Gorilla-Wolves of
>war.
Anyone got any of what he's on?
If so, flush it down the toilet NOW...............
Steve.
--
Guitar and bass tuition - all styles and levels. | Zappa! Guitar! Beer!
http://users.powernet.co.uk/guitars/tuition.htm | Trade Zappa and Gatton!
mail: st...@XSPAMXguitarsXMAPSX.powernet.co.uk | Save money by setting
Heb de Latz und schpill dini Gitare. | up your own guitar!