Reading standard notation

What's Hot
24

Comments

  • paul_c2paul_c2 Frets: 410
    paul_c2 said:
    I think its just a case of trying it, BUT making sure there's a gradual progression from easy (ie key of C, no accidentals) to more advanced stuff. If you jump in with 4-5 sharps (or flats), accidentals all over the place, weird time signatures, 3 octave range and semiquavers etc its going to much harder.

    Here's a useful website: https://www.sightreadingfactory.com/app

    Its free but only gives about 20 or so tests - they're computer generated so don't expect them to be particularly musical either. It will let you set the key signatures to try and other aspects to make it easy/hard.

    Quite a lot of jazz transcriptions are all written in C and have the sharps and flats in there to help you, bar by bar.  

    It's when I want to learn something and the transcription is in standard notation and I look at it and it's so offputting, you know?  

    I know what you mean, and its one of those cases where the "its a bit unusual" applies. Basically, the piece you linked to changes "key" (actually, mode of a key) so often, like every bar or so, that instead of being notated as a key change its "modulation" with a bunch of accidentals. In addition, there's tons of "passing notes" which don't belong to whatever underlying scale is being used at the time anyway (for example there's a number of chromatic runs there).

    There comes a point where its not possible to sight read it (I'm sure some people could...) but it needs to be worked out; for example you could go through bar-by-bar and determine the particular scale/mode being used then apply the correct fingering to achieve playing the notes most easily. Personally I couldn't sightread your example and would do this, probably annotating the score with tips on position and fingering.

    A lot of classical "atonal" music is like that too, where instead of putting some arbitary key signature, they'll leave it in C (or something else which only vaguely relates to the music) and use accidentals instead of key signatures. However the jazz example isn't atonal, its just complicated!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom

  • paul_c2 said:
    paul_c2 said:
    I think its just a case of trying it, BUT making sure there's a gradual progression from easy (ie key of C, no accidentals) to more advanced stuff. If you jump in with 4-5 sharps (or flats), accidentals all over the place, weird time signatures, 3 octave range and semiquavers etc its going to much harder.

    Here's a useful website: https://www.sightreadingfactory.com/app

    Its free but only gives about 20 or so tests - they're computer generated so don't expect them to be particularly musical either. It will let you set the key signatures to try and other aspects to make it easy/hard.

    Quite a lot of jazz transcriptions are all written in C and have the sharps and flats in there to help you, bar by bar.  

    It's when I want to learn something and the transcription is in standard notation and I look at it and it's so offputting, you know?  

    I know what you mean, and its one of those cases where the "its a bit unusual" applies. Basically, the piece you linked to changes "key" (actually, mode of a key) so often, like every bar or so, that instead of being notated as a key change its "modulation" with a bunch of accidentals. In addition, there's tons of "passing notes" which don't belong to whatever underlying scale is being used at the time anyway (for example there's a number of chromatic runs there).

    There comes a point where its not possible to sight read it (I'm sure some people could...) but it needs to be worked out; for example you could go through bar-by-bar and determine the particular scale/mode being used then apply the correct fingering to achieve playing the notes most easily. Personally I couldn't sightread your example and would do this, probably annotating the score with tips on position and fingering.

    A lot of classical "atonal" music is like that too, where instead of putting some arbitary key signature, they'll leave it in C (or something else which only vaguely relates to the music) and use accidentals instead of key signatures. However the jazz example isn't atonal, its just complicated!
    Right, so that makes sense why so much jazz stuff is written in C with the accidentals added each bar.  
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • octatonicoctatonic Frets: 33725
    Will you make it into tabs for me Jim?  
    I've got a bit much on at the moment mate.
    It is a good learning exercise to do it yourself. :)

    Right, so that makes sense why so much jazz stuff is written in C with the accidentals added each bar.  
    Most jazz scores I've seen don't put the score into C major and use accidentals.
    It makes it complicated to read.
    For example, this from the real book:


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • octatonic said:
    Will you make it into tabs for me Jim?  
    I've got a bit much on at the moment mate.
    It is a good learning exercise to do it yourself. :)

    Right, so that makes sense why so much jazz stuff is written in C with the accidentals added each bar.  
    Most jazz scores I've seen don't put the score into C major and use accidentals.
    It makes it complicated to read.
    For example, this from the real book:


    Well, I have the Finale score if you're interested.  It's beyond my scope to be honest.

    I've seen lots of scores on websites that have everything in C - http://www.poparad.com/learn.php

    Lots of guys would post stuff on the Kurt Rosenwinkel forum in this format too - add in the accidentals bar by bar.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • octatonicoctatonic Frets: 33725
    Well, I have the Finale score if you're interested.  It's beyond my scope to be honest.

    I've seen lots of scores on websites that have everything in C - http://www.poparad.com/learn.php

    Lots of guys would post stuff on the Kurt Rosenwinkel forum in this format too - add in the accidentals bar by bar.
    That isn't how pro's do it, because it is more work to read all the sharps and flats rather than just read in the right key and observe the accidentals.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • paul_c2paul_c2 Frets: 410
    octatonic said:
    Well, I have the Finale score if you're interested.  It's beyond my scope to be honest.

    I've seen lots of scores on websites that have everything in C - http://www.poparad.com/learn.php

    Lots of guys would post stuff on the Kurt Rosenwinkel forum in this format too - add in the accidentals bar by bar.
    That isn't how pro's do it, because it is more work to read all the sharps and flats rather than just read in the right key and observe the accidentals.

    As above really, I looked at a number of the transcriptions but couldn't work out why he was so reluctant to put a key signature in. I can only guess that he's chosen not to by convention, but it looks either lazy, or that he doesn't know the key!!

    ------------------

    Off topic but regarding key signatures, things can get weird if you look at classical music. For example, some instruments have 2 versions for example the C piccolo and Db piccolo - sometimes the composer will say which one to use, other times he will leave it up to the performer to select the right one. And sometimes the music will be transposed appropriately, other times not. Similarly playing in a "far away" key is so difficult on a clarinet (and definitely alters the tone) that its normal to have an A clarinet as well as a Bb. Again...sometimes the piece will be written for the A transposing, sometimes not.

    It gets worse for French Horn players. In days gone by, they didn't have valves, so key changes were done by swapping crooks. And there's a multitude of music out there in loads of different transpositions, for example "for Horn in A, Horn in F#, Horn in E, Horn in Eb", etc etc. So the modern player (who has a Bb side but normally transposes in F) has to transpose from all these keys into their instrument. And often the parts will be written without a key signature, ie as if in C but with accidentals all over the place.

    And sometimes, if an instrument is to remain silent (ie has no part) or has only a small part in a particular section, the arranger will be too lazy to write the key change, but if/when that instrument DOES start playing (probably for only a couple of bars or so) the part will be written in the previous key signature but with a ton of accidentals!! So if you stopped and quizzed the player at the time, they'd disagree with everyone else on what key the piece is in - despite being a superficially coherent orchestra playing together.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • octatonic said:
    Well, I have the Finale score if you're interested.  It's beyond my scope to be honest.

    I've seen lots of scores on websites that have everything in C - http://www.poparad.com/learn.php

    Lots of guys would post stuff on the Kurt Rosenwinkel forum in this format too - add in the accidentals bar by bar.
    That isn't how pro's do it, because it is more work to read all the sharps and flats rather than just read in the right key and observe the accidentals.

    Not disagreeing with you, because you know way more about this than me - I just thought that someone like Jeremy Poparad would do things the right way?  Why do you think he's writing his transcriptions all in C?  As I said, I've seen loads of guys doing this, even Steve Khan, although his handwriting is horrific.   http://stevekhan.com/korner1.htm
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • SporkySporky Frets: 27568
    octatonic said:

    That isn't how pro's do it, because it is more work to read all the sharps and flats rather than just read in the right key and observe the accidentals.

    I've just started (well, 9 months or so in) on reading dots-and-squiggles notation, and I agree completely. Setting the key signature first means you can get your head into the scale and positions, then you can get on with playing. Having to evaluate every sharp or flat as an accidental is vastly harder. It's also downright wrong by standard music theory.
    "[Sporky] brings a certain vibe and dignity to the forum."
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • octatonicoctatonic Frets: 33725
    edited September 2016
    octatonic said:
    Well, I have the Finale score if you're interested.  It's beyond my scope to be honest.

    I've seen lots of scores on websites that have everything in C - http://www.poparad.com/learn.php

    Lots of guys would post stuff on the Kurt Rosenwinkel forum in this format too - add in the accidentals bar by bar.
    That isn't how pro's do it, because it is more work to read all the sharps and flats rather than just read in the right key and observe the accidentals.

    Not disagreeing with you, because you know way more about this than me - I just thought that someone like Jeremy Poparad would do things the right way?  Why do you think he's writing his transcriptions all in C?  As I said, I've seen loads of guys doing this, even Steve Khan, although his handwriting is horrific.   http://stevekhan.com/korner1.htm
    I don't know Poparad but if he is a teacher then he might be doing it to pitch it at a certain level for his students.
    If you are curious then maybe email.

    I know you aren't disagreeing but just to be absolutely clear here- experienced musicians don't transcribe everything in C- it is far more work to do it that way. You look for the easiest way to do it and that is to use key signatures.

    There is no reason to do it- if you know your circle of 5ths and scales/arpeggios in all positions & keys then why would you?
    It is no harder for me to think in Eb than C- I just think '3 flats'- Eb Ab Bb- job done, let's read this shit.
    Anything out of position gets 'swept up' by moving up or down the neck until you can get back into position.

    Imagine you spoke Russian and English fluently- you wouldn't read a Russian book by translating into English and reading that, you'd just read it in Russian.
    The only reason for translating it into English is because you don't read/speak Russian as well as you read/speak English.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • octatonic said:
    octatonic said:
    Well, I have the Finale score if you're interested.  It's beyond my scope to be honest.

    I've seen lots of scores on websites that have everything in C - http://www.poparad.com/learn.php

    Lots of guys would post stuff on the Kurt Rosenwinkel forum in this format too - add in the accidentals bar by bar.
    That isn't how pro's do it, because it is more work to read all the sharps and flats rather than just read in the right key and observe the accidentals.

    Not disagreeing with you, because you know way more about this than me - I just thought that someone like Jeremy Poparad would do things the right way?  Why do you think he's writing his transcriptions all in C?  As I said, I've seen loads of guys doing this, even Steve Khan, although his handwriting is horrific.   http://stevekhan.com/korner1.htm
    I don't know Poparad but if he is a teacher then he might be doing it to pitch it at a certain level for his students.
    If you are curious then maybe email.

    I know you aren't disagreeing but just to be absolutely clear here- experienced musicians don't transcribe everything in C- it is far more work to do it that way. You look for the easiest way to do it and that is to use key signatures.

    There is no reason to do it- if you know your circle of 5ths and scales/arpeggios in all positions & keys then why would you?
    It is no harder for me to think in Eb than C- I just think '3 flats'- Eb Ab Bb- job done, let's read this shit.
    Anything out of position gets 'swept up' by moving up or down the neck until you can get back into position.

    Imagine you spoke Russian and English fluently- you wouldn't read a Russian book by translating into English and reading that, you'd just read it in Russian.
    The only reason for translating it into English is because you don't read/speak Russian as well as you read/speak English.

    I'll email him and ask him and see what he says.  I just saw he's playing bass for Ben Monder at the moment so he's probably mad busy.  
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • octatonicoctatonic Frets: 33725
    edited September 2016
    One thing about his site.
    He has transcriptions in C, Bb and Eb.
    The Bb and Eb ones are for transposing instruments- clarinet, bass clarinet, alto sax, soprano sax etc.
    When he says C, what he means is a non-transposing instrument.
    This doesn't necessarily mean it is in the key of C, just that the instrument is non-tranposing (such as piano, *guitar, oboe)

    * Guitar actually IS a transposing instrument but the interval is an octave so it doesn't matter.

    Looking in his transcriptions for non-transposing instruments, what he is calling 'C' instruments, he is also not using key signatures. I don't know why- it is weird, because some of them are clearly in flat or sharp keys and have sharps and flats all over the place.
    I'd hate to have to sight read them.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • octatonic said:
    One thing about his site.
    He has transcriptions in C, Bb and Eb.
    The Bb and Eb ones are for transposing instruments- clarinet, bass clarinet, alto sax, soprano sax etc.
    When he says C, what he means is a non-transposing instrument.
    This doesn't necessarily mean it is in the key of C, just that the instrument is non-tranposing (such as piano, *guitar, oboe)

    * Guitar actually IS a transposing instrument but the interval is an octave so it doesn't matter.

    Looking in his transcriptions for non-transposing instruments, what he is calling 'C' instruments, he is also not using key signatures. I don't know why- it is weird, because some of them are clearly in flat or sharp keys and have sharps and flats all over the place.
    I'd hate to have to sight read them.
    Yea man that's what I meant, he doesn't use key sigs.  I've seen loads of people doing this.  
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • octatonicoctatonic Frets: 33725
    edited September 2016
    No worries, just confirming we are talking about the same stuff.

    I don't know why he isn't using key sigs- it is weird.
    In is his transcription of 'All the Things You Are' he has (mostly) the right chords and he ends on Abmaj7 (the piece is in Ab major) but nothing to indicate this in the key signature.

    This is how it looks in the Real Book.



    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • paul_c2paul_c2 Frets: 410
    The purpose of a key signature is to minimise the writing out of accidentals.

    There is an "accepted" convention that atonal or sufficiently modulating pieces, (ie where there would be loads of accidentals irrespective of what the key signature written is; or if key changes were to be put in, there would be tons of them) can be written without a key signature. And also its quite possible a piece is in a different key than simply major or minor (there's at least 7 modes, after all).

    However, I don't know what the convention is for when its alright to do this - even if it results in more accidentals.

    I suspect one could go through the examples linked to and do something of a mathematical exercise to "simplify" it - ie by using a key signature, minimising the accidentals and also appropriately notating key changes (but also minimise the number of these for simplicity).
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • vizviz Frets: 10643
    edited September 2016
    paul_c2 said:
    The purpose of a key signature is to minimise the writing out of accidentals.

    There is an "accepted" convention that atonal or sufficiently modulating pieces, (ie where there would be loads of accidentals irrespective of what the key signature written is; or if key changes were to be put in, there would be tons of them) can be written without a key signature. And also its quite possible a piece is in a different key than simply major or minor (there's at least 7 modes, after all).

    However, I don't know what the convention is for when its alright to do this - even if it results in more accidentals.

    I suspect one could go through the examples linked to and do something of a mathematical exercise to "simplify" it - ie by using a key signature, minimising the accidentals and also appropriately notating key changes (but also minimise the number of these for simplicity).
    ^ wis. 

    Regarding key sigs' purpose of minimising accidentals, that's the norm especially for classical and older traditional songs (eg Debussey's Sunken Cathedral - in G mixolydian, with a C key sig. Or Drunken Sailor - in D Dorian and written with a key sig of no sharps or flats rather than the 1 flat of D minor, thus avoiding having to naturalise that 6th).

    I wonder whether that convention is changing - in more recent modal music, people increasingly seem to have the key sig as though the piece were in major or natural minor, and use accidentals for the modal deviations. Eg The Simpsons, which has the key sig of C, with the F# showing as an accidental (rather than having the key sig of G).  Or Flying in a Blue Dream - also with a C major key sig and sharpened 4ths throughout. I guess it's done that way in order to draw attention to the modal tonality of the piece. 
    Roland said: Scales are primarily a tool for categorising knowledge, not a rule for what can or cannot be played.
    Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • stratman3142stratman3142 Frets: 2176
    edited September 2016
    viz said:
    paul_c2 said:
    The purpose of a key signature is to minimise the writing out of accidentals.

    There is an "accepted" convention that atonal or sufficiently modulating pieces, (ie where there would be loads of accidentals irrespective of what the key signature written is; or if key changes were to be put in, there would be tons of them) can be written without a key signature. And also its quite possible a piece is in a different key than simply major or minor (there's at least 7 modes, after all).

    However, I don't know what the convention is for when its alright to do this - even if it results in more accidentals.

    I suspect one could go through the examples linked to and do something of a mathematical exercise to "simplify" it - ie by using a key signature, minimising the accidentals and also appropriately notating key changes (but also minimise the number of these for simplicity).
    ^ wis. 

    Regarding key sigs' purpose of minimising accidentals, that's the norm especially for classical and older traditional songs (eg Debussey's Sunken Cathedral - in G mixolydian, with a C key sig. Or Drunken Sailor - in D Dorian and written with a key sig of no sharps or flats rather than the 1 flat of D minor, thus avoiding having to naturalise that 6th).

    I wonder whether that convention is changing - in more recent modal music, people increasingly seem to have the key sig as though the piece were in major or natural minor, and use accidentals for the modal deviations. Eg The Simpsons, which has the key sig of C, with the F# showing as an accidental (rather than having the key sig of G).  Or Flying in a Blue Dream - also with a C major key sig and sharpened 4ths throughout. I guess it's done that way in order to draw attention to the modal tonality of the piece. 
    I Wish by Stevie Wonder is an interesting example.

    People will ask what key the band is going to play it in and the usual answer would be Eb minor or D minor.

    In fact it's predominantly the Dorian mode. So if it were played in D minor it would be logical to set the key as D minor (i.e. its relative major which is F) with one flat, then include natural accidentals for the B notes. It would be confusing to say it's in A minor (i.e. its relative major C) to avoid the accidentals.

    It's not a competition.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • This can all get very confusing. It's just fun to play and not have to think about this stuff but, at the same time, it's nice to have an understanding.  
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • vizviz Frets: 10643
    edited September 2016
    I Wish by Stevie Wonder is an interesting example.

    People will ask what key the band is going to play it in and the usual answer would be Eb minor or D minor.

    In fact it's predominantly the Dorian mode. So if it were played in D minor it would be logical to set the key as D minor (i.e. its relative major which is F) with one flat, then include natural accidentals for the B notes. It would be confusing to say it's in A minor (i.e. its relative major C) to avoid the accidentals.


    Yes exactly, and even if the key signature were A minor, you'd still say the key were D Dorian. (Though as you say, it's normally written as though in Eb natural minor (6 flats) with all the C flats naturalised throughout - which seems to be the common approach nowadays.)
    Roland said: Scales are primarily a tool for categorising knowledge, not a rule for what can or cannot be played.
    Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • vizviz Frets: 10643
    edited September 2016
    octatonic said: 


    find a song in G and a song in F (one sharp, one flat).
    Then find a song in D and a song in Bb (two sharps, two flats).




    A song with F# and Bb you say? Sounds like g melodic minor ;)

    A song with F#, C#, Bb and Eb you say? sounds like Hungarian minor scale in g ;) ;)
    Roland said: Scales are primarily a tool for categorising knowledge, not a rule for what can or cannot be played.
    Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • paul_c2paul_c2 Frets: 410
    How about no key signature and no time signature?



    Also, some other weird stuff I've never seen, like an arrow pointing upwards to mean "play the highest note possible" and downwards "lowest note possible". And instead of notes/pitches, waves to show some varying pitch. Bonkers.

    0reaction image LOL 1reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.