Two many numbers ?

ChrisMusic

Let's face it, everything, well almost, seems to de described by a number.

Are there just too many numbers?

How do you handle all the numbers we guitarists have to deal with?

Is there an easy system of writing them all down, a notation of numbers so to speak, so we can see the wood for the trees ( or the frets from the fingers?)  ( or the beats from the intervals)

So what has a number?

Strings

Frets

Fingers

Intervals

Sequences

Positions & boxes

Groups & shapes etc

then there is the music itself:

Beats in the bar, note duration, time signatures and the bars of course

Tempo, Beats per minute

what else have I missed?

What I am asking is - how to write this stuff down,

ie, play the 6th string on the 4th fret with your 2nd finger which is the root or 1st interval, and which is the first step of the sequence we are about to run through...

It is almost approaching novella proportions just to write a couple of octave scale this way.

So, there must be a better way, surely

Guitar teachers and wise people of the FretBoard, how do you describe these things, is there any standard way?

If not, then lets invent one...

ChrisMusic

Oh, by the way - there must be a better discussion title than "Two many numbers ?"

Myranda

ChrisMusic said:

Let's face it, everything, well almost, seems to de described by a number.

Are there just too many numbers?

How do you handle all the numbers we guitarists have to deal with?

Is there an easy system of writing them all down, a notation of numbers so to speak, so we can see the wood for the trees ( or the frets from the fingers?)  ( or the beats from the intervals)

So what has a number?

Strings

Frets

Fingers

Intervals

Sequences

Positions & boxes

Groups & shapes etc

then there is the music itself:

Beats in the bar, note duration, time signatures and the bars of course

Tempo, Beats per minute

what else have I missed?

What I am asking is - how to write this stuff down,

ie, play the 6th string on the 4th fret with your 2nd finger which is the root or 1st interval, and which is the first step of the sequence we are about to run through...

It is almost approaching novella proportions just to write a couple of octave scale this way.

So, there must be a better way, surely

Guitar teachers and wise people of the FretBoard, how do you describe these things, is there any standard way?

If not, then lets invent one...

Yes, I've always said someone needs to invent a way of noting down music... if only there was some form of notation we could use.

I'm going to patent a way of representing notes that make up a song.

But what to call this form of tabulature or music on sheets of paper

randomhandclaps

Title - 'The Numerical Burden Of The Modern Day Guitarist'.

Phil_aka_Pip

Myranda said:

But what to call this form of tabulature or music on sheets of paper

The musical equivalent of painting by numbers is what I'd call it. There's always proper notation. I never understood why guitarists and bassists are the only instrument players who think they shouldn't have to use it.

axisus

ChrisMusic said:

Is there an easy system of writing them all down, 

I find the best way is sequentially. Otherwise nothing makes sense.

ddlooping

ChrisMusic said:

Oh, by the way - there must be a better discussion title than "Two many numbers ?"

How about "Too many numbers?"? :P

ChrisMusic

Maybe I am being naieve, but whether it is standard music notation, tablature or whatever, it only encompasses a subset of the variables.  Adding any further instruction or clarification means deviating further away from the standards and adding complexity to an already established system.

I am trying to suss a simpler way.  Like adding finger, interval and sequencing information to a neck diagram, as maybe one instance of this.  Or having to describe the same in purely text form, like here, without the aid of graphics.

I like your comment @Phil_aka_Pip - "'The musical equivalent of painting by numbers' is what I'd call it", quite poetic I think, maybe a good title even.  If I come across a major breakthrough then maybe the thesis title goes to the slightly more academic 'The Numerical Burden Of The Modern Day Guitarist', with thanks to @randomhandclaps.

If a major, or even a minor breakrthough eludes me, I could 'augment' my plea with 'diminished' responsibility.  

Phil_aka_Pip

Thanks but what's wrong with standard notation? It tells you what notes to play, when, for how long, in what order. It implies the scale/interval relationships between those notes in a way that tablature (spit) doesn't. And every musician (with the exception of a lot of guitarists and bassists) can read it and share it. The only downer is you need special software to edit and print it.

fretmeister

Too. And the answer is standard notation.

littlegreenman

Phil_aka_Pip said:

 every musician (with the exception of a lot of guitarists and bassists) can read it and share it.

Pushing it just a bit with that statement methinks! A lot, yes. Every? Hmmm...

randomhandclaps

@ChrisMusic is actually right.

Whilst I much prefer traditional notation from a music point of view it does have a couple of distinct issues in guitar transcription. Firstly is the inability to notate certain techniques.  The guitar has more note approaches then any other instrument.  A bend, a slide, a hammer-on, a bend behind the nut and a whammy up can all be read as the same. 

A second issue is the rhythmic style in which the guitar is played.  A lot of strummed rhythms for instance are generated by vary the strings struck.  Transcribing it accurately and without any other direction would lead to a confused and unreadable score.

Despite standard notation being an established and IMO brilliant system (not a tab fan) it does have certain limits when transcribing guitar parts.  When scoring I will include information for clarity but as ChrisMusic pointed out you are varying from the system.

Phil_aka_Pip

The Rockschool books seem to have got the usual guitarists' articulation covered and you can tell the difference between hammer, pull, slide, bend etc.

The other thing is that every last minute detail of articulation cannot be notated, or even copied by one musician trying to ape another. That's what distinguishes concert class violinists from each other even when they're playing from the same score.

PolarityMan

I actually think position is more of an issue than articulation. I guess 90% of the time you could tell from the context but fundamentally the open strings sound really different from the same not played somewhere else on the fretboard.

Jalapeno

Phil_aka_Pip said:

The other thing is that every last minute detail of articulation cannot be notated, or even copied by one musician trying to ape another. That's what distinguishes concert class violinists from each other even when they're playing from the same score.

Kind of agree.  If you're in the ranks you see the violin bows rising and falling in unison (within 1st, 2nd etc) - they're all playing from the score, with the conductor directing dynamics etc (and they rehearsed it to buggery in advance too).  The Soloists usually don't use the score at all - they've learnt it by heart/ear.

Mike Stern is an avid user of scores, practising using Bach scores etc, but even he adds which finger he uses under the notes.

Phil_aka_Pip

PolarityMan said:

I actually think position is more of an issue than articulation. I guess 90% of the time you could tell from the context but fundamentally the open strings sound really different from the same not played somewhere else on the fretboard.

agreed it's a significant issue ... even playing entirely fretted notes will be different (eg the C on the G string fret 5 vs the C on the D string fret 10)

frankus

too many numbers? they're the same freaking numbers!

take middle C - half it, half it again (c at the end of the piano), half it again ... half it 4 more times and waddaya got? 120 BPM.

now, scales described in functions of a major scale (ie 1 2 b3 4 5 6 b7) are simply holes punched in a pianola - for an instance of a bar they mean one thing - next chord voicing they mean something else. So make your life easier - learn sounds and where to find them.

Strings and the fretboard - why do we use tab? Well the banjo, slide guitar and ukulele are tuned to chords - so everything revolves around those chord shapes. Violins, Violas, Cellos etc are tuned to 4ths or 5ths so the pattern is repeated and discernable. The guitar is a bit of both and has the comfort of neither learning approach - so tab is used.

Snobbery about tab - tab predates notation (what did you think the ledger lines were for? they're strings originally for Lutes (tuned in 3rds)).

Music is about sounds and Pythagorus (father of modern mathematics) is the creator (or at least documenter) of the Western Musical scale - take a note, half it's frequency that's an octave below... increase the frequency by 50% and that's a fourth below the first note or a fifth above the second.. 50% of that notes and we're at thirds.

Everything in the world can be described in numbers and dimensions - lots and lots of them and it is rarely appropriate to do so - but try telling that to the robot men

ChrisMusic

Thanks @randomhandclaps…  I wasn't sure I had explained myself very well, and probably still haven't.  I was getting ready for the lynch party.

I am so pleased that you understand my perspective and motivation in asking the questions.

I would appreciate it if you would add a little flesh to your comments please.  

What performance nuances or directions and variables do you normally score for in extra notation, and what symbols or nomenclature do you use to indicate those?

Are there any generally accepted or normally used ones?

And how do you add those extra performance notes?

Is that in software or by hand to the score?

If you have anything further you could add to the discussion I would be very grateful.

ChrisMusic

A few words of further explanation of my perspective.

My opening questions for this discussion are not limited to this, but it may give you a better idea of where I am coming from.  Pardon me for naivety and the necessary brevity and limited scope of the examples but I hope you get the general gist.

( BTW, the scoring and standard notation side is only one part of the question however. )

I throw this open to stimulate contemplation and discussion on the subject.

Please feel free to add to this, or to clarify, as well as to contribute any opinions..

. . . . . . . . . . .

If you try playing a straight written score through midi software you get an accurate [read - sterile] rendition of the variables scored for.

I have yet to try this and hear a "musical" performance, yet all the notated information is correct, just limited.  Often the rendition is barely recognisable as the original piece.

The missing performance / expression / interpretation is a very large part of what we hear, recognise and appreciate in a piece of music, and yet most of that is left to the musician.

Most classical pieces, and arguably most recent guitar music has a recognised interpretation, and woe betide any covers band who deviates from the expected norm.

In an orchestral context the conductor is there to interpret and weave the polyphonic performance into a cohesive whole.  The musicians have spent years honing the variety of techniques which may be called on, understand the repertoire and are able to deliver the subtleties which the conductor requires, but probably only after an awful lot of rehearsal time learning and understanding the subtle and not so subtle nuances required.

. . . . . . . . . . .

Most instruments are monophonic, and therefore a simple sequence of notation may get pretty close.

Some are polyphonic, take the piano, where every note is represented by only one iteration, ie, middle C only appears in one place on the instrument.

On the guitar we have what could be described as six parallel but skewed pianos each with a couple of octave range.

We have the freedom to choose the tonal quality, pitching, timbre and envelope of the note by where on the neck we choose to play that note.

There are so many other techniques and subtleties which we can call on, and which make up the signature style of any guitarist.

We are so lucky to have such massive expressive potential with the guitar.

I feel it is however a bit of o double edged sword.

Little, if any of this is conveyed in any standard system of notation, whether you are writing, performing, or just learning.

Whilst I agree that standard notation gives the most basic nuts and bolts of a piece of music, there is just so much intrinsically missing in conveying the intention and emotion conceived in original writing [an original piece of music]…

Admittedly there is so much in a performance that to expect more than a subset of the variables to be notated is unrealistic, but there really should be a better, or more inclusive way, surely the world has moved on from the inception of standard notation.

edit: the odd typo

ChrisMusic

Thanks @frankus, that's much more like it, I enjoyed your comments, that should stimulate some discussion

Phil_aka_Pip

@Frankus I find some of your assertions to be questionable.

1. Ref tab used for strings & fretboard: if your argument stands up keyboard players would also have a kind of tab, but they don't. tab was just an alternative to notation in the days when notation was not settled and "standardised" as it is now. as you said, it predates currently accepted notation. That doesn't make it better. Notation is not instrument-specific which is one of the reasons for it being superior.

2. leger lines aren't extra "strings". the stave (with its 5 lines) is only the visible part of a (conceptual) stave which extends upwards and downwards of what is restricted to 5 lines just for the convenience of printing. leger lines extend it in either direction when necessary

3. The theory about frequencies, doubling them for octave etc is OK in theory, but in practice doesn't work unless you stick to playing in one key which is why we use equal temperament as a convenient kludge so that we can combine notes in chords and change keys when we wish to.

Most things in this world can be described by numbers, as you say; I don't see anything wrong with that.