Question For You Music Readers Out There

[supabock]

[quote name='Doddy' post='659232' date='Nov 19 2009, 02:03 PM']So why are guys like Steve Pearce,Paul Westwood,Phil Mulford, and Trevor Barry (to name a few) so busy?
Because they can 'hit it' and know what they are doing. I'd much rather hire someone like this than a player
who can only 'busk' it.

Back to the Pete's question,understanding the basics of a range of genres is a big part of
interpreting charts. If you know the stylistic differences between,say, Rock,Jazz and Country,
you can apply the correct feels to the music as you are reading them.
The charts give you all the information regarding what to play,but it's up to the player to interpret
it the correct way.[/quote]

I totally agree, and check out these guys as they play in all different genres and styles. They are precise, reliable and fast. Also there is a lot to be said for experience in these areas and how you learn from it, Paul Westwood and Steve Pearce are great examples of how to do it

[funkypenguin]

As a reader and someone who has been reading since i started playing music, once you've gotten the notes down, and assuming you have a musical head on you, its expected that you interpret the notes on the page to get, well, MUSIC! out of the notes! every bass player will have a different interpretation of whats presented to him/her, so if a band/artist/producer has a very specific idea of how they want the line phrasing/emphasising, then either a recording or some rehearsal time are essential, speaking from experience.

[thodrik]

I started reading way before I started playing bass. Being able to read music notation and and have knowledge of theory is a great thing to have. It certainly allows you to be a more versatile musician, but not necessarily a better bassist in terms of feel, which comes from practice or natural talent. I do think that prior knowledge of the genre of music is needed before you can sightread effectively. So obviously a top funk player, would be able to read a funk piece and know how to make it 'groove' because he will have a great knowledge of that genre and how to play it.

That said, I have never learned electric bass guitar through notation, theory or instructional videos. If I wanted to do that I might as well have stayed playing double bass in orchestras. Bass guitar for me is release from all that. I can pick it and play the way I want to play. Obviously knowledge of theory has affected the way I play and write, but its not something I make a conscious effort in doing.

[Pete Academy]

So, how much groove information can you put in written music?

[supabock]

[quote name='funkypenguin' post='659548' date='Nov 19 2009, 07:33 PM']As a reader and someone who has been reading since i started playing music, once you've gotten the notes down, and assuming you have a musical head on you, its expected that you interpret the notes on the page to get, well, MUSIC! out of the notes! every bass player will have a different interpretation of whats presented to him/her, so if a band/artist/producer has a very specific idea of how they want the line phrasing/emphasising, then either a recording or some rehearsal time are essential, speaking from experience.[/quote]

These guys we are talking about, Westwood, Pearce etc, invariably go in cold with literally no rehearsal most of the time, read the dots, please the producer and then they are off to the next gig. They are monster readers and know how to deliver a part is most cases pretty much on a first take basis, unless they are running additional parts by a producer.

[Eight]

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='659591' date='Nov 19 2009, 08:09 PM']So, how much groove information can you put in written music?[/quote]
I'm not sure I quite understood the question. You can notate the rhythm and dynamics to an insane level of detail if you want. You could write in variations in these dynamics, lengths of pauses and notes etc. to simulate something that a person does naturally when they play a musical instrument.

But groove? To me that's more a subjective phenomenon that happens when multiple people play together and all their little idiosyncrasies and habits come together and create something that a listener really enjoys/feels.

Could you script that? I guess so... but that would take the fun out of it all. It's like a script used for acting, you could in theory write a screenplay with so many acting notes and directions that everything you need for that Oscar is right there on the paper. But in practice, it generally takes a good actor to bring out all the good stuff from the script.

Edit: but being able to read the script is a decent start. Although the method actors and improvisers might call that step unnecessary for "serious" acting.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Eight

[Pete Academy]

I have to admit, I'm finding it a little difficult to convey what I want to say.

Let's say you're in a band of totally non-readers, doing your own material. A band member - say the guitarist - turns up to rehearsal and plays a song he's written. The rest of the band listen and jam around. Eventually you have a finished number.

But what if the band member turns up with his composition written out, and the other band members can read fluently?

Would the writer be able to convey his newly-written song as effectively?

Edited November 19, 2009 by Pete Academy

[Eight]

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='659624' date='Nov 19 2009, 08:41 PM']Would the writer be able to convey his newly-written song as effectively?[/quote]
He could write it exactly how *he* wanted it played if he knew his onions, and the readers were used to fairly complicated scores (since to write down every detail and performance direction could result in something quite hideous to look at it).

My gut feeling is that there wouldn't be many people capable of scoring every detail so well that it sounded natural (groovey?) if played dot to dot by a band. But it's conceptually possible - you'd need very small writing and a lot of paper.

[xgsjx]

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='659624' date='Nov 19 2009, 08:41 PM']But what if the band member turns up with his composition written out, and the other band members can read fluently?

Would the writer be able to convey his newly-written song as effectively?[/quote]
This is how classical music is written by most composers (until computers allowed them to chuck ideas down anyway), so yes, it can be done.
The person who wrote the song might have to act as conductor tho.

[sdgrsr400]

As several have said, awareness of genre is of the essence and most good session musicians will be familiar with a wide variety of styles and would be able to groove well from very basic charts. Many jazz charts, for instance say "swung" which implies a different reading of certain note values/relationships to normal "straight" playing.

Another example in the classical field is the waltz, which if played in the most echt-Viennese style subtly alters the standard 3/4 rhythm to weight the middle note slightly. Attempting to notate such a stylistic choice would be considered daft.

This discussion reminds me a bit of the "Can you teach feel?" thread we had some time ago!

[Doddy]

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='659624' date='Nov 19 2009, 08:41 PM']I have to admit, I'm finding it a little difficult to convey what I want to say.

Let's say you're in a band of totally non-readers, doing your own material. A band member - say the guitarist - turns up to rehearsal and plays a song he's written. The rest of the band listen and jam around. Eventually you have a finished number.

But what if the band member turns up with his composition written out, and the other band members can read fluently?

Would the writer be able to convey his newly-written song as effectively?[/quote]

If the band can read and the band leader brings in a chart,the piece will invariably played and
learned quicker than just jamming around. A chart is the easiest and quickest way to get your unheard music played.

As far as the amount of information you can write,you can write everything out if you want-Mutes,slurs,vibrato,
everything. But then it's down to the player to convey this into a groove.

[velvetkevorkian]

[quote name='Eight' post='659636' date='Nov 19 2009, 08:52 PM']He could write it exactly how *he* wanted it played if he knew his onions, and the readers were used to fairly complicated scores (since to write down every detail and performance direction could result in something quite hideous to look at it).

My gut feeling is that there wouldn't be many people capable of scoring every detail so well that it sounded natural (groovey?) if played dot to dot by a band. But it's conceptually possible - you'd need very small writing and a lot of paper. [/quote]
I agree with this- it's theoretically possible but would be a total pain in the ass to execute. Its a similar situation with making programmed drums sound like a real drummer- when it comes down to it its just very fine subdivisions if you want to have it played, say, slightly in front of the beat (or whatever).

All written music requires some interpretation at some point- in an orchestra its easy to do as long as everyone watches the conductor. You can get a similar effect by taking a midi version of a piano piece, for example, and feeding it into a sequencer and a top notch piano VST. You will then get the notes at the right time in the right order, but you would have to spend much longer tweaking every single bit of MIDI to get it to sound like a real person playing- the small dynamic variations, the slight tempo differences and so on.

edit- no good reading musician will [i]only[/i] look at the chart- they will listen to what's going on and use what they know of the idiom they're playing in, and that will [i]inform [/i] how they interpret the written notes.

Edited November 20, 2009 by velvetkevorkian

[Pete Academy]

Some very interesting responses.