My First Transcription - Born Under A Bad Sign

[Kirky]

I've just joined a blues band so have been busy learning new tunes. I've done a transcription of Albert King's Born Under A Bad Sign - would be grateful for any feedback. I used Noteflight (an excellent free online tool) and saved it as a PDF. I'd rather have used a F double sharp than the G natural where it appears, but don't know how to do double sharps using Noteflight.

Cheers,

Martin

Edited November 30, 2011 by Kirky

[JakeBrownBass]

Looks ok from where i am mate.

Personally for me, i know i'd prefer to see a natural than a double sharp but i guess its preference!

[skej21]

[quote name='Kirky' timestamp='1322689646' post='1454659']
I'd rather have used a F double sharp than the G natural where it appears, but don't know how to do double sharps using Noteflight.
[/quote]

Any reason?

The transcription looks alright but your use of accidentals doesn't make much theoretical/playing sense.

For example, your use of an E# rather than an F (and your intended use of an F## rather than a G natural) seems to be overcomplicated for the sake of it.

The only time a transcriber/composer should really use such accidentals is if they are trying to communicate a single, specific chord.

For example, if you were using an E# in the bass line because the chord you were outlining was a Dmaj7#9, then you would be correct in it's use as the chord tells you to sharpen (#) a natural 9th (E), so you end up with a notated E#.

However, if you were simply using an E# because it was part of a chromatic run, then the use of an enharmonic equivelent (i.e. F instead of F# and G instead of F##) is usually favoured (and more importantly, expected by the reader/player). Mainly because, F, F#, G is easier to read than E#, F, F##.

The easiest way you could clear up this confusion is by placing chord symbols/names above the bars, so that when someone else reads it, they don't think "what's the point of putting in uncommon/more difficult accidentals like E# and F##, when F, F#, G would have been better?"...

If they are appropriate and the chord symbol is there, then it will answer that question and make musical sense.

If not, then you're just adding in more places for a reader to trip up/make mistakes, and that will mean they are unlikely to go searching for one of your transcriptions again.

[chris_b]

[size=4]Very good. OK now try the Robben Ford version.[/size]

[ezbass]

Check out the version with Pino on Paul Rodgers' Muddy Water Blues CD

[Kirky]

Thanks for your feedback everyone. I'll certainly check out the other versions of the song.

[quote name='skej21' timestamp='1322727129' post='1454846']
For example, your use of an E# rather than an F (and your intended use of an F## rather than a G natural) seems to be overcomplicated for the sake of it.

[/quote]

I was trying to be faithful to the key signature, and also have as few accidentals as possible. The run E#, F(sharp), F double sharp, G (sharp) would only need 2 accidentals (the sharps in brackets covered by the key signature). Your suggestion of F natural, F sharp, G natural and G sharp would need 4 accidentals. I'm not sure putting the chord symbols/names helps, because the bass line is just a chromatic run under fairly simple chords in this case. Or am I missing something?

Edited December 2, 2011 by Kirky

[JakeBrownBass]

[quote name='Kirky' timestamp='1322866923' post='1456955']
Thanks for your feedback everyone. I'll certainly check out the other versions of the song.



I was trying to be faithful to the key signature, and also have as few accidentals as possible. The run E#, F(sharp), F double sharp, G (sharp) would only need 2 accidentals (the sharps in brackets covered by the key signature). Your suggestion of F natural, F sharp, G natural and G sharp would need 4 accidentals. I'm not sure putting the chord symbols/names helps, because the bass line is just a chromatic run under fairly simple chords in this case. Or am I missing something?
[/quote]

From a reading point of view, reading an accidental is a lot easier that reading double sharps or flats.

Regarding 'keeping it true to the key signature', if its a passing note/chromatic run, it's not in the key signature so accidentals [i]should [/i]be used.

For me, double accidentals only feel comfortable when reading music with borrowed chords from the parallel minor/major, but then there's almost always the chords written above.

[skej21]

[quote name='Kirky' timestamp='1322866923' post='1456955']
Thanks for your feedback everyone. I'll certainly check out the other versions of the song.



I was trying to be faithful to the key signature, and also have as few accidentals as possible. The run E#, F(sharp), F double sharp, G (sharp) would only need 2 accidentals (the sharps in brackets covered by the key signature). Your suggestion of F natural, F sharp, G natural and G sharp would need 4 accidentals. I'm not sure putting the chord symbols/names helps, because the bass line is just a chromatic run under fairly simple chords in this case. Or am I missing something?
[/quote]

See Jake's comment below. Despite having more accidentals, it's a lot easier to read accidentals than double sharps/double flats. We see accidentals more commonly so get used to reading them, unlike double flats/sharps.

As for putting the chord names above the bars, what harm it do? You'd simply be including more information that can help other players understand the music/part more. Leaving it out doesn't allow that.