Why are tabs always wrong?

[Dan Dare]

The reason a lot of tab is not great is explained in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. When a bike manufacturer wants to issue a workshop manual, they ask the works manager to suggest someone to write it. The manager, realising that this will rob the production line of a worker for some while, suggests the worst, least productive member of staff, because their absence will not affect production too much and it's easier to do without them.

[Bassfinger]

4 hours ago, Dr.Dave said:

In terms of why they aren't always accurate I think it's all been said but though they can be an interesting reference as to what someone else played ...well - I don't really care about recreating how somebody else did it and I refer you to my favourite 'Douglas Bader ' coaster.

 

 

Said the pilot who lost both legs because he ignored the rules on aerobatic flying, and then got shot down and taken P.O.W. because he ignored the rules on staying in formation.

 

Hell, he probably writes bass tab! 🤣

[zbd1960]

I don't have any problems reading notation and TAB is relatively new to me and I find it peculiar, particularly the lack of rhythm notation (I am familiar with lute tablature which has similarities, but that does have 'flags' to indicate rhythm). Even worse is the type of lead sheet which is basically the lyrics where someone has shoved chord names in.

 

As to why they're wrong? Like the 'real' books used by jazz players, someone will have written down what they think it is, it gets copied and circulated and then ends up becoming 'official' even though it's not very accurate  

[BigRedX]

The thing with recorded "rock" music, is that's its almost never performed entirely from a pre-composed score, in the way that classical music or a musical is.

 

Often significant portions of a recording will have been improvised in the studio, and the version that ends up being released is just the combination of notes that the musician(s) played on one particular take. Fills and passing notes in particular may have been different every time the part was played, and if the person who "wrote" the part played it differently every time who's to say the version that appears on the released recording is any more definitive then any of the takes that didn't make it because something else was deemed to be sufficiently wrong?

 

And what of parts that have been composited together from multiple takes? Either because the musicians didn't have the technical skills to play the whole song consistently in a single take, or because the musicians and/or the producer decided that they'd like to mix and match the part from various different versions, which can sometimes result in a great sounding part but which is far beyond the average musician's ability to play as a single continuous piece. A prime example of this is Fripp's guitar parts on the Heroes album which are stitched together from multiple unconnected takes at the whim of producer Brian Eno.

 

And then consider the differences between the "definitive" studio version and what the band actually play when they perform the song live. Parts will often change to make them easier to play consistently (especially for musicians who also sing), or because without all the intricacies and overdubs of the studio version compromises need to be made in order for the song to have the same impact when played with just 3 or 4 live instruments. Check out the differences in the bass line on Thin Lizzy's "The Boys are Back in Town" between the studio and live album versions. Which one is the "right" version?

 

This is why I always find threads like this perplexing. Much of the time for baselines in particular the minutiae of the part are totally random. I don't play in covers bands any more, but when I did, my philosophy was always that if I couldn't make out what was going on with a bass in particular section, so long as I played something in tune and in time that was in keeping with the "spirit" of the rest of the part it would be more than fine.

 

 

 

[Nicko]

4 hours ago, peteb said:

 

The real trouble with tabs is that they don't encourage you to develop your ear, especially when you are starting out. The same issue can apply with notation, but at least you need to develop some knowledge of theory to learn to read notation. It is not enough to have something that just shows you where to put your fingers to be able to play something when you start out, you need to learn why that works as well, otherwise you are never going to learn how to actually play.  

 

 

You need to be able to see the music behind the tab and to know that the second fret on the 'A' string is a B, but could be payed as the seventh fret on the 'E' string (or the ninth fret if 'E' string is tuned down a step). 

 

 

I'm not entirely convinced that being able to read notation is in any way better than being able to read tab in terms of musical understanding.  The only difference IMO is the lack of rhythmic direction in tab.  As for ear training looking at a sheet in front of you - in either format - will not help one iota. 

 

I write as someone who struggles to read notation (I have been learning recently after not trying for 40 odd years) but have had some  basic formal musical theory training - I know where the notes are on a fretboard, I know my scales, and I know my modes.  However as a guitarist I generally think in terms of chord patterns and visualise patterns for bass/lead lines rather than note names.  

 

As for tabs not being correct I suspect the reason the tab isn't correct is the same reason someone is looking for tab in the first place -  the passage is difficult to hear in the mix or simply too fast to be able to differentiate the notes.

[ambient]

12 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

The thing with recorded "rock" music, is that's its almost never performed entirely from a pre-composed score, in the way that classical music or a musical is.

 

Often significant portions of a recording will have been improvised in the studio, and the version that ends up being released is just the combination of notes that the musician(s) played on one particular take. Fills and passing notes in particular may have been different every time the part was played, and if the person who "wrote" the part played it differently every time who's to say the version that appears on the released recording is any more definitive then any of the takes that didn't make it because something else was deemed to be sufficiently wrong?

 

And what of parts that have been composited together from multiple takes? Either because the musicians didn't have the technical skills to play the whole song consistently in a single take, or because the musicians and/or the producer decided that they'd like to mix and match the part from various different versions, which can sometimes result in a great sounding part but which is far beyond the average musician's ability to play as a single continuous piece. A prime example of this is Fripp's guitar parts on the Heroes album which are stitched together from multiple unconnected takes at the whim of producer Brian Eno.

 

And then consider the differences between the "definitive" studio version and what the band actually play when they perform the song live. Parts will often change to make them easier to play consistently (especially for musicians who also sing), or because without all the intricacies and overdubs of the studio version compromises need to be made in order for the song to have the same impact when played with just 3 or 4 live instruments. Check out the differences in the bass line on Thin Lizzy's "The Boys are Back in Town" between the studio and live album versions. Which one is the "right" version?

 

This is why I always find threads like this perplexing. Much of the time for baselines in particular the minutiae of the part are totally random. I don't play in covers bands any more, but when I did, my philosophy was always that if I couldn't make out what was going on with a bass in particular section, so long as I played something in tune and in time that was in keeping with the "spirit" of the rest of the part it would be more than fine.

 

 

 

This is very true.

 

As I said earlier, if I was having to learn lines  quickly for a gig, I’d be starting with the chords and not a tabbed part.

 

At uni we had to learn a Cream song for a weekly live performance workshop. The part was taken from a live recording, I don’t think there was a single riff that was repeated note for note. It always struck me as being a bit daft having to learn it note perfectly, it would have made more sense - and have fitted the style of the song better - to have been allowed to use it as a springboard for our own lines.

[MacDaddy]

7 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

The thing with recorded "rock" music, is that's its almost never performed entirely from a pre-composed score, in the way that classical music or a musical is.

 

 

 

 

 

Classical music performed from a pre-composed score is often different when recorded. Often due to time and space limitations, but also when repeated sections are omitted, or variations of a repeated section ar not used etc.

But also different conductors will play each piece differently.

If you are interested, Google Bernstein talking about how Beethoven's Third can sound with different conductors

[BigRedX]

36 minutes ago, MacDaddy said:

 

Classical music performed from a pre-composed score is often different when recorded. Often due to time and space limitations, but also when repeated sections are omitted, or variations of a repeated section ar not used etc.

But also different conductors will play each piece differently.

If you are interested, Google Bernstein talking about how Beethoven's Third can sound with different conductors

 

But these changes are edits or a change in feel. You don't get he orchestra completely re-writing the second violin part on a whim

[MacDaddy]

4 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

 

But these changes are edits or a change in feel. You don't get he orchestra completely re-writing the second violin part on a whim

 

Not on a whim, but conductors do change the score, and soloists do change the lead.

[TimR]

Orchestral scores are rearranged all the time. 

[TimR]

So I guess maybe the Tab isn't 'wrong' unless the notes actually don't fit the key or chord quality, they're simply just someone's interpretation. 

 

Ultimately, and we've done this a hundred times, no one will be playing the original recorded arrangement live for a variety of reasons. 

Edited March 1, 2022 by TimR

[Nicko]

5 minutes ago, TimR said:

So I guess maybe the Tab isn't 'wrong' unless the notes actually don't fit the key or chord quality, they're simply just someone's interpretation. 

 

Ultimately, and we've done this a hundred times, no one will be playing the original recorded arrangement live for a variety of reasons. 

True.  I might not play a cover as it was played in the original recording, but most people wouldn't notice most of the time.  I saw a band the other day that I have depped for where I consider the bass player to be much better than I am, but in a couple of songs he was playing different rhythms to the original.  I suspect I was the only person here that noticed.

[Downunderwonder]

1st.

Edited March 2, 2022 by Downunderwonder

[Downunderwonder]

Time the ol double post has gotten me in a long time.

Edited March 2, 2022 by Downunderwonder

[Downunderwonder]

16 hours ago, Dad3353 said:

 

Sorry. I can play it, but it's ringing no bells, so I'm guessing that it's not Sibelius or Grieg. Handel seems unlikely, too. A bit more modern, maybe..? David Bowie..? No..? OK, I'm stumped. 

Clue 1. It's an intro, with jingly rhythm guitar over the top, played with a bounce that isn't notated.

Clue 2. Is too much of a giveaway. I will give it so I can hear you kick yourself from here if clue 1 doesn't make it click. I guarantee you know the tune.

[Dad3353]

22 minutes ago, Downunderwonder said:

Clue 1. It's an intro, with jingly rhythm guitar over the top, played with a bounce that isn't notated.

Clue 2. Is too much of a giveaway. I will give it so I can hear you kick yourself from here if clue 1 doesn't make it click. I guarantee you know the tune.

 

Rhythmically, it sounds like 'Yesterday' (I'm a drummer, so I know these things...), but when I pick it out on the bass (or guitar...), it doesn't. Maybe I'm not as good on drums as I used to be..? Is there a shadow hanging over me..? Oh, how I long to find out what this is. 

(S'not Chopin, though, that's certain...)

[Downunderwonder]

34 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

 

Rhythmically, it sounds like 'Yesterday' (I'm a drummer, so I know these things...), but when I pick it out on the bass (or guitar...), it doesn't. Maybe I'm not as good on drums as I used to be..? Is there a shadow hanging over me..? Oh, how I long to find out what this is. 

(S'not Chopin, though, that's certain...)

Clue 1.5 The tempo is slightly faster than Yesterday.

 

Clue 2. Ready for a monumental self asskicking?

 

 

[Spolier]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A itty bitty black kid on lead vocals.

 

[/SPOILER]

Edited March 2, 2022 by Downunderwonder

[Dad3353]

Sammy Davis Junior..? 

[Downunderwonder]

14 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

Sammy Davis Junior..? 

I don't know if he was a child star that made it bigger than the Beatles, but no.

[Nicko]

3 hours ago, Downunderwonder said:

A itty bitty black kid on lead vocals.

Well, he was black when he sung it.

[Woodinblack]

22 hours ago, Rich said:

Name that tune  

 

Ooh miss.. miss.. I know, I know <waves hand>

[Downunderwonder]

41 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

 

Ooh miss.. miss.. I know, I know <waves hand>

I think all bassists ought to be familiar with the line. Readers read. I have never played it and didn't have to play it to know what it is. That's the power of notation in reverse.

 

Seems old Dad must be hearing drums before bass lines.

[Nicko]

52 minutes ago, Downunderwonder said:

I think all bassists ought to be familiar with the line. Readers read. I have never played it and didn't have to play it to know what it is. That's the power of notation in reverse.

 

Seems old Dad must be hearing drums before bass lines.

I wasn't familiar with it and don't read notation well. I confess I had to play it and the note names helped.

[MacDaddy]

1 hour ago, Downunderwonder said:

I think all bassists ought to be familiar with the line. Readers read. I have never played it and didn't have to play it to know what it is. That's the power of notation in reverse.

 

 

 

i've heard a Sex Pistol play it

[Dankology]

I quite like a sort of hybrid system I've seen on one of the free online bass lessons sites: four lines representing the strings but with note names rather than fret numbers.

 

I convince myself it encourages me to think more about what I'm doing rather than just mindlessly playing the fret numbers.