paul_c2

Stub Mandrel, I think yours is an unusual case - others have started out on tab and been able to switch to, at least basic, reading of normal notation. When you do read it, you don't normally associate the position of the blobs with note names though - you instinctively miss out the intermediate step and associate the position of the blobs with the position of your fingers on the fretboard.

Green Buses Drive Fast Always All Cows Eat Grass

Ear training is great, and an important skill. But its not really directly equivalent to reading, either TAB or standard notation. Take the example, someone writes a piece and puts a copy of a piece of paper with some kind of notation in front of them, to all try and play it together. Those who can sight read (notice I didn't mention normal notation or tab), or do something not far off it, are going to be able to play it pretty much straight away and that really helps, in a lot of situations. If you needed to do it by ear then 1) someone will have to prepare the audio to be available, possibly in advance 2) it will inevitably take an amount of time and listening over and over to accurately "get it" 3) there is no (decent) equivalent to being able to say "ok lets go from bar 98" - you'd need to also understand and memorise the structure of the song, and then refer to those easily-identifiable points such as "verse 2", "chorus 3" or whatever. So no matter how good your ear is at picking up or transcribing music, you'd still need some kind of preferably written down system to (excuse the pun) "all be on the same page" when it comes to rehearsing that material, otherwise it would potentially be a much slowed down and frustrating process. In summary, a good ear is a good technical skill to have, but it doesn't and cannot solve all the problems/issues/situations a notation system addresses.

That's a very good point. The differences between TAB and normal notation which make it easier for many players, are actually elements of music (I'm reluctant to say music theory - some people seem to be allergic to those words and turn off when they see them, assuming its too much to think about or too complicated) which are generic, can be transferred to many situations, and will prove genuinely useful over time. For example: - Knowing the positions of the same notes on different places of the neck - Recognising and relating intervals eg an octave and a fifth can be played 2 different ways - Accurate detail of rhythm, ie are you in 4/4, 2/4, 12/8, something else? - What key you're in - When the notes are diatonic or not (ie accidentals in normal notation). By definition, in normal notation an accidental will mean either you'r playing a chromatic passing note, or some kind of modulation or non-diatonic alteration has occurred.

.

Yes that's appreciated. Its true for all notes (well....except the lowest ones obviously) of a guitar, not just in chord voicings. But its also true for many other instruments. For example, on a French Horn there's alternate fingerings for pretty muh every note, and 2 'sides' of the horn too (Bb and F). Some notes have 8 fingerings. And on other brass instruments (including trombone) there's alternate fingerings - these days, most trombone players use one with a valve or two as well as the slide. Woodwind instruments have loads of alternate fingerings too, and a particular one can make what was very difficult, slow, or out-of-tune into something much easier. Piano and other keyboard instruments have an advantage here but its just a factor of playing other non-keyboard instruments that the player takes into consideration. Better players will be able to identify the appropriate fingerings for a situation much quicker than a beginner.

I don't have any experience of teaching how to read music, so I can't really help unfortunately. Its possible that its dysmusia. There's nothing actually wrong with tab in itself, or preferring tab than notation. All I can say is, for me, in my situation, I prefer normal notation. Others might prefer tab. There could well be others who will comment later on, about tab. Just don't ask Adam Neely about tab!!!!!!

Well......yes and no. You need to understand what a key signature is, but you don't NEED to fully understand keys and scales, you could simply "play as written" ie if the key signature has F# in it, you play F# when you see the note on the 4th line and not F natural, etc etc. This isn't too complicated (with a few sharps/flats, at least). And I'd suggest that someone who doesn't have a clue about keys and scales will be limited in their musicality irrespective of whether they actually read normal notation or tab, or not at all. AND even then.....a guitar or bass has an advantage with playing in different keys and scales that the fingering is no better or worse, except the availability of open strings, in any key. Unlike, say, a clarinet player who would need to use awkward fingerings in distant keys, and when the keys are closer it becomes more manageable. Well......yes and no. It would still have advantages.......it would just be one additional thing to look at while reading it, and could even be ignored (a trombone player, for example, would simply ignore it). There is no reason why chord voicings aren't just as obvious to a guitarist reading music, as a pianist reading music. An experienced reader will have no troubles things covering more than an octave, with open strings and "strings well up the neck"! Of course effort is required but its learnable just like everything else is learnable. It really isn't a barrier. Its just as obvious because its written down in the notation....an analogy might be that tab is painting by numbers, but even if the numbers were missing, a painter would know that grass is green and the sky is blue etc etc

I'm trying to believe you but you're not really giving much concrete information on what makes describing a piece of music impossible by one form of notation, but possible by another. Or to put it another way, musical notation can do everything tab can do and more. They are simply different syntaxes of the same thing. An analogy might be that I can take a photo using a Nikon camera, and display it on a Samsung monitor. There's loads of different pictures possible, but all pictures which the Nikon can take, can be shown on the Samsung. Its coming across that you're obviously not experienced, and don't fully understand, musical notation and all its variation or subtleties. I suspect this is the reason that you favour tab. Which....(I've said it before)....is fair enough. I'm not forcing standard notation on anyone. I fully understand that in your situation, tab is going the job okay. In my situation, I use standard notation. I've also used tab in the past, quite extensively, so I know about it.

Normal music notation is accessible for beginners too. What aspects of musical theory do you need to use it, which you can ignore if using tab? Doesn't seem right, can you explain further? Tab gives the notes played and the strings they're played on. Notation gives the notes played and optional elements (such as a text note saying which string to play a particular note on, or which position to be in) can explain which string to play it on. Even if these optional elements are not there, it is still entirely possible to deduce which string to play each note on. Or in fact, the player has the option to choose, if there is >1 option. But there would be at least 1 option. If it were truly impossible, then tab would not be able to notate it either.

I am going to take a wild stab in the dark, that's not actual brass playing....but synth brass. Real brass WILL make a difference on those kinds of lines - it won't be quite as tight, but that's a good thing, it allows the expressiveness to come through. Worth bearing in mind, if you're going to perform it live. And if you recorded it, you could leave it not quite timed exactly, or spend a day quantising it all etc..... Often in arranging, the saxes - particularly the alto sax, which is quite soft and quiet compared to tenor - can effectively replace the part of the strings. If you really want to make it lush.....use some French Horns. Just listen to pretty much any film soundtrack by John Williams, tons of examples in film scores.

I won't really say too much - I'm not bothered if people want to use tab instead of conventional; but the time/effort spent in improving tab could be used to learn normal notation. I find it odd that you have tried and failed to learn it - its not that complicated....after all, the higher the note, the higher the note (on the notation)....and as time goes on, similar to reading words, the music is read from left to right. I suspect its partly because you've not been taught properly and partly because there is no impetus to actually practice reading regularly in your situation.

The effort vs reward for getting "real" stringed instruments in, is probably too low to pursue except for specific cases. Violins, violas and cellos are quiet and would definitely need amplification, and its a bit of a technical exercise in itself. Its not just a case of sticking a vocal mic in front of them, they will feedback and the actual sound produced would be poor. You'd need to use something like a dedicated condenser instrument mic with a violin clamp. Also, the "sound of an orchestra" is partly because a chorus of many violins playing in unison (I know there's 1st and 2nd violins...and divisi....I mean >1 are playing each of the however many parts there are....) blends well and produces a distinct sound of its own. Quite different to a "solo" violin. For brass and saxes, yes ideally you'd use an instrument condenser mic, but they are loud enough you CAN just plop them in front of an appropriately placed vocal mic and it sounds okay, and also won't feedback nearly as much because they are naturally quite a loud instrument. Also, unless you know what you're doing, try to talk to an actual trumpet and sax player about what's hard or easy, or possible or impossible, or be prepared to rearrange or shift things up or down an octave, etc. They are quite different from guitar and bass and can do wonderful things - but there's things they can't do or is very difficult, which for a bassist is very easy. For example, octave jumps etc. BUT that's not a bad thing - use their advantages. For example (a really basic one) might be instead of having a repetitive 8th note pattern, let them play one long note but do an sfp followed by crescendo on it. A wind instrument (and a bowed string) can vary the volume of a note once its initiated. A good example would be the first few bars of "Nutbush City Limits", notice how there's only 3 notes in their first 2 bars, if a guitar played the notes it would be drab but they are able to use their control of dynamics.

If you want to use tab, use tab. If you want to learn/use (conventional) music notation, then that's your option too. The point I was making originally, is that (conventional) music notation allows musicians to effectively communicate their ideas, rather than relying on unclear wordy descriptions or "I'll show you....hang on....can I just borrow your bass and play through it a bit and you watch my fingers....." etc. In theory, tab could do it too; in practice there are a lot of variations of what information tab actually contains, and unfortunately the common denominator in music available in tab means it doesn't quite achieve the "effective communication" as above. If your band wants to adopt one of the better variations in tabs, or finds some other way of effectively communicating music(al ideas), then that's great.

I kinda got what you mean. I guess the true origin, or descendant, of what we call the modern musical notation stave is singing - where they would have used one vertical position per note of the scale. And the predominant scale, eventually evolved to be the 7 note major scale as we know it - which of course relates to C major on a piano, so they match up nicely. I'd say its more of a happy coincidence than a deliberate thing though.

This is why programs have "Save As...". You can keep the original then go off on a tangent and try something. Let your ears be the judge - if it sounds right, it is right. And vice versa.

Its kinda veering off-topic a bit, but a good argument for not using tab is that its effectively limited to the bass guitar (and closely related instruments, where their players could probably make a good stab at interpreting it). For example, if you presented a piece of music written in bass tab (plus), a pianist couldn't play it. Or trombone, etc etc

Indeed, there's an interesting debate to be had for tab vs normal notation. And I agree, if the tab is done well, then it can show all the information needed to play it properly (including most importantly, the rhythm). Lots of tabs are low quality, but that's another issue really. Its also possible to have poor quality normal music notation and it leaves you guessing, or open to further broad interpretation. BUT with normal music notation, you're pretty much guaranteed to be provided with a key, a time signature and the accurate rhythm of the notes to be played (and the rests too - which IMHO is just as important). I guess I'm lucky in that I learned piano before bass (so I knew both treble and bass clefs). I didn't realise not that many bass guitarists can read.

If I'm interested in a song I'll seek out the original for sure, and maybe if I'm arranging it for a different kind of group I'll have a look around for some covers too. I'll deliberately avoid "tutorial" or "instructional" style videos, just look for covers. I'd say about 30% of the time, the cover is as good (just different) or improves on an original, but it depends a lot on the song. For example, VERY few people have successfully covered Wuthering Heights, it is a very hard song to do.

This is why actual proper notation (ie sheet music) is so good. It simply beats a vague description of a vague idea, or a tab (with no rhythm information, probably without articulation, dynamics etc either). Then, you're not relying on another's interpretation (of those notatable elements), you can actually write them down and have it in black and white.

Ummmmm.........I don't think he actually wrote that. It looks like "when the saints go marching in". That or "The number of the beast" by Iron Maiden.

Acoustic screens around the entire brass (and percussion) section makes a lot of sense.

Thanks for the comments. It kind of makes sense - whilst there is nothing extra on the spec sheet, the gains (no pun intended) are there to be had. Its interesting that Behringer do a "normal" and "premium" line. I've used some of their kit before - a tuner pedal and a graphic EQ pedal - with no real complaints about the EQ but the tuner, in the end, didn't really have the speed or sensitive hearing of other, better tuners. One thing is clear, the market is flooded with different variations of analogue mixers, from about £40 to £6000 and everything in between, so its definitely worth doing an amount of research before buying one with possibly features you'll never ever need; or without something which you would find useful. And while a bit of room to expand is wise, it also makes sense to go for a decent brand (such as Yamaha) rather than simply find the cheapest with x inputs, or whatever your criteria is. Unfortunately, for a big band potentially the number of inputs needed (long term) is mind-boggling (possibly 40+, a workable compromise might be 16 though). Fortunately, it won't be my money (directly) I'm spending.

Interesting comments regarding the sound quality. For example, the Yamaha MG16XU is £454 (has built in effects and compressors), the Yamaha MG16 is £378 (no effects though) and as comparison the Alto Live 1604 is £336. In this case, what does the extra £120 or so, buy you? Putting the specs side-by-side, each mixer has the same number of inputs and similar features etc.

Logic says it can't be simply down to the setup, since - by physics/science - string pitch is related to thickness/weight, tension and length.