Two many numbers ?

randomhandclaps

Well that's what makes your point earlier (as I understood it) correct in that there isn't a recognised repeatable way of doing this.  Personally I would write in words at the point it happens.  When at Uni we would study west end scores that that had notes scribbled all over and have world in musical theatre where decoding the explanations, conversing with the MD or access to source material for clarity was essential .

Although Phil notes that you cannot notate every articulation for most instruments, as Jalapeno highlighted with the case of soloist on violin (and it applies even more so to guitar) an accurate performance requires pre-knowledge and learning of the score to allow you to determine and negotiate individual note approaches.  This isn't always the case with a pianist for example.

I think @PolarityMan's point regarding fretting position is also very valid and the above applies.

Jalapeno

Other thoughts ....

"Standard" notation is really piano tab - makes perfect sense sat at a keyboard.

For 2-2.5 octave instruments (wind mainly) they're playing only one clef or the other, so it also works for them easily.

Phil_aka_Pip

Jalapeno said:

Other thoughts ....

"Standard" notation is really piano tab - makes perfect sense sat at a keyboard.

For 2-2.5 octave instruments (wind mainly) they're playing only one clef or the other, so it also works for them easily.

I'm not convinced notation is just piano tab. one feature of tab is that it is a representation of what you physically do with the instrument (eg play this string at that fret), whereas notation doesn't tell you a numbered key to press, it is still a bit more abstract than that. It is true that there is a 1-for-1 correspondence between any note and the key that gives you that note, but I don't think that this fact is sufficient reason to describe notation as piano tab. Just an opinion

frankus

Phil_aka_Pip;71236" said:

@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.

Thanks Phil, most of my "assertions" are historical facts - as far as I'm aware, well they were when I read them. It's fine to question them, but I don't feel these points contradict what I said.

Yes, you are right I meant staves not ledger lines.

Yes, the division of frequencies doesn't work in an equal temprament system - keys were a later addition to the system as were fretted instruments.

Whether one is better than the other is a silly idea - they have appropriate applications - a Jerry Donahue solo transcribed to standard notation is more impenetrable than simply hearing the solo - it can be decyphered; but it's faster with tab... communicating in bands is better with standard notation ... apples and oranges - where's the need for conflict?

Pianist rely on reading to two lines for the left hand and right hand, trumpet players use Bb as middle C (because brass instruments sound better in those keys), Most Mozart was played with a concert pitch about a 5th below what we use today.

I've not been asserting, I've been observing

ChrisMusic

frankus said:   ...they have appropriate applications - a Jerry Donahue solo transcribed to standard notation is more impenetrable than simply hearing the solo - it can be decyphered; but it's faster with tab... communicating in bands is better with standard notation ... apples and oranges

The holy grail of physics, unified theory.

It is not just chasing ghosts, but in accepting the obvious limitations in our knowledge and perspective on reality, there is something fundamental missing in our interpretations.

Quantum Mechanics vs. General Relativity, apples and oranges - or expressions of the same reality?

Just incomprehensible to us at our current evolutionary state, maybe?

Why do we invest ourselves in the quest for enlightenment?

Human nature to strive for enlightenment and improvement.

A bit of a shaky parallell, maybe, but worthy of consideration.  As for numbers, a stone age way of conceptualising some relevant aspects of the world, and riddled with inconsistencies.  There is a better way for them too (probably) but thats a whole other discussion. 

frankus

Are you familliar with the term "the map is not the territory?" The map isn't the territory; it never will be - the map will never be complete; just as people cannot be happy for long - we're born restless.

Systems and their representations are shallow echos of a beautiful and infinitely more complex reality.

As a martial artist, I'm aware that anything except application is subject to mystification and over-examination. Breathe in and think, breathe out and do. Anything more is inaction.

ascending tetrachords describe a cycle of fifths,
any scale can be described by two quartal harmonies with one shared note.
modes can be reordered into cycles of sharpened 4ths or flattened 7ths..

but if you can hit the first beat of a bar, you can extemporise or live and breath in music... so why do we obsess on the systematized representation of sounds and the internet reviews of the latest gear?

I'm human I can only understand this system as a human, I'm finite and flawed so anything I do or make is equally constrained, and I'm okay with that. I can strive to improve - in fact if I don't strive I am guaranteed to become less than I was. If anything I try to live by that principle - if it's easy I'm doing it wrong.

As a person interested in mental health I am aware that we're all prone to systematizing our reality and that one of the identifiers of a person we'd call psychopath (not necessarily a killer) is that they spend 70%+ of their time in their psychosis (their system). We're hard wired to seek safety and comfort - even in todays world where there is so little peril - we adapt and withdraw from social peril or threats to our ego - we withdraw into systems we can safely predict - risk little so can gain little.

So systems do not interest me any more than is readily applicable.

But, Music is a language it isn't a system - if it is predictable it is because we're predictable and will evolve as we do. Orchestras need notation because what they're playing is new or a new interpretation they annotate themselves... with their personal foot notes - the average pub band needs music to recite what's there... a modern jazz band less so as it's ideas and a shared experience with the audience.

ChrisMusic

@Phil_aka_Pip you mentioned in an earlier comment that the Rockschool books seem to have got the usual guitarists' articulation covered.  I have only just recently returned to playing the guitar after a very long absence, so I don't have much knowledge of the resources available.

I wonder if you could give an example of them, it would improve my 'notational' vocabulary, especially if they are commonly used symbols or methods.  Or maybe provide a link if possible? that would be very helpful for me, thanks.

Phil_aka_Pip

@ChrisMusic I don't think I can show you with images, but here http://www.rockschool.co.uk/books/guitar/gradebooks/ they tell you what's in each grade book, including guitar-specific techniques. I can tell you that there's a whole page in each grade book that describes the notation for bends, slides, pinch harmonics, taps etc, so what you see described in the syllabus they've got a notation for. Probably best to find someone with a grade book and ask them to let you see it ... or wander into a music shop where they sell them and have a quick look inside.

My also be worth looking at some of the Off-TheRecord or RockScore books as they also use their own notation for guitar techniques - it may not be exactly what RockSchool use but I'm sure that the notation is converging on a standard these days.

Pick down/up strokes are represented by nicking the symbols the violinists use for up-bow/down-bow.

Hope this helps.

BTW the classical guitarists also have their additions to notation: position numbers in roman numerals above the stave, string numbers in a circle above or below the stave depending on where the note head is, a small number next to the note head to say which fretting hand finger should be used to fret it, p i m a for which picking hand finger should be used to play it.

bertie

in plain english, and as few words as possible, please someone explain WTF this thread is about

Phil_aka_Pip

@Frankus I can see the similarity between staves and string tabs, but the chants used by the monks were also written on things that looked like staves, before string tabs became widely used. Hence I'm not convinced that staves are derived solely from string tabs. I think they go back further than that.

as for the map not being the territory, I agree. I'm also inclined to agree about music not being a system - our representation and formulae help us to analyse and describe what we hear. For music to be a language I'm hesitant: in natural spoken or computer compiled languages there is a defined syntax and the components of the language have defined meanings*. While composers can try to convey emotions or impressions with their music, I'd find it hard to take some music and say "It means such and such", but you can do that with German or Algol.


*most of the time, but lawyers make a lot of money from arguing about it

ChrisMusic

An interesting view of systems theory @frankus.

The whole human quest for knowledge, enlightenment, understanding and improvement quantified as "We're hard wired to seek safety and comfort".  Where would we be now without that drive, for the intellectual and also the action (physical) ?  Maybe back in our prehistoric state where saftey and comfort, food and procreation are the focus of everyday existence, and surviving the day is the focus of a lifetimes existence.  So yes, maybe you are right.

Arguably, I would say that any language is systematised, by it's very nature.

We are the product of biochemical systems, we use systems to look for patterns to simplify and understand the world around us to survive.  Our brains use systems to simplify the onslaught of sensual information into patterns so that we can react and cope to life in a timely manner.  I would arguably say that human kind is system dependant for our very survival, and that they are an intrinsic part of our very being.

Embrace the system, you know it makes sense 

frankus

ChrisMusic said:

An interesting view of systems theory @frankus.

The whole human quest for knowledge, enlightenment, understanding and improvement quantified as "We're hard wired to seek safety and comfort".  Where would we be now without that drive, for the intellectual and also the action (physical) ?  Maybe back in our prehistoric state where saftey and comfort, food and procreation are the focus of everyday existence, and surviving the day is the focus of a lifetimes existence.  So yes, maybe you are right.

Arguably, I would say that any language is systematised, by it's very nature.

We are the product of biochemical systems, we use systems to look for patterns to simplify and understand the world around us to survive.  Our brains use systems to simplify the onslaught of sensual information into patterns so that we can react and cope to life in a timely manner.  I would arguably say that human kind is system dependant for our very survival, and that they are an intrinsic part of our very being.

Embrace the system, you know it makes sense 

Languages aren't systems - languages have grammar and which is a systemisation of the language

If you investigate systems theory (I got into it via Richard Swanson) - we have biochemical system, pulmanry system, we exist in an eco-system in an environmental system in a solar system in a galactic system in a universal system that may be itself within a system - BUT you don't need to know those systems to know me, equally and obversely if you understand the respiratory system, reproductive system, my family system, my societal system .. in short every system about me (supposing we've identified all of them) - you won't know me.

We are systems of systems in one sense of the word "a complex interplay of components" but not in the other sense of the word "a set of organized principles or methods" - what we say can be predictable but equally unpredictable - the book of psychological games people play had to be rewritten as soon as it had been widely read - it's a Heisenberg thing, possible.

We're the nexus of a complex array of systems which we will never fully map... as is everything else. The probability of one item's action multiplied by the probability of all the related items... it's too complex to sweat.

My gripe with systems is that people learn to recite the systems as a substitute for profoundly understanding a system - it's called surface learning in education. Someone invested in theoretical is readily entertained by the hypothetical whereas I prefer experiential.

Watch the prefixes: a person extolling a theory they've never applied (hypothesis) is a hypocrit(actor), hypokrisis (play acting), a person who takes a theory and performs experiments gains experience regardless of the outcome of the experiment - if the action is repeatable: they're an exponent.

hypo is to be beneath: experi is to do.

I seem to recall it being William Blake who said "faith is a platform from which to observe the unknown". It's an understanding. We're standing on it. It should be shifting. Systems are faith, it'd be interesting to compare a religious person asked to recount the moral of a parable with a scientist asked to recount the application of Newton's first law - after all these things share many qualities and our brains are similarly organised to store this.

This kind of stuff is best described briefly and with very specific goals to be attributed clearly:

doing = The Matrix
systemizing = The Matrix Revolutions.

capiche?

ChrisMusic

"bertie said:  in plain english, and as few words as possible, please someone explain WTF this thread is about"  edit: added for context

Hey @bertie,

It started off because I want to post some fairly simple guitar exercises, and am looking for an easy way that is recognised for writing the exercises out, that's if there is one.

I worded it in a fairly open ended way to see what wider discussions would ensue.

The rest is history.  It does seem to have taken on a life of its own.  I rather enjoy that.

Maybe a bit of a WTF moment, but I think it's getting quite interesting - non?

frankus

what's the nature of the exercises? are they to test the fingers or ears?

stuff like the spider fingers exercises require tab as they are defined by the fretboard.

Jalapeno

ChrisMusic said:

Hey @bertie,

It started off because I want to post some fairly simple guitar exercises, and am looking for an easy way that is recognised for writing the exercises out, that's if there is one.

I worded it in a fairly open ended way to see what wider discussions would ensue.

The rest is history.  It does seem to have taken on a life of its own.  I rather enjoy that.

Maybe a bit of a WTF moment, but I think it's getting quite interesting - non?

Careful now, @Bertie and music theory is a heady mixture !

ChrisMusic

Hey @frankus, there are a series of things I am thinking of doing over a period of time.  Returning to playing the guitar again has given me a more unique perspective.  It has been so many years that I have had to start pretty much from square one again, yet the enigma is that so much is hiding in the depths of memory, it just needs a bit of coaxing.

So I am re-approaching the learning process with an insight which I never had when I initially learnt so many years ago, and am hoping to share this on here, to see what other people make of it, and hopefully it will be of use to some folks too.

So the short answer is "fingers", at least initially.    (note I have never been accused of being succinct

For that I have been considering tab &/or neck diagrams.  I am very open to any ideas though.

The scoring comments are very useful too, so a note to everyone to keep this discussion alive and kicking.

I am exploring the possibilities of this expedition as language rather than system.

Good comment about systems being faith, not too sure about that, but worthy of contemplation me-thinks.  Good post.

Oh, and I am probably the only person in the UK not to have watched the Matrix trilogy.  My sort of thing, but sometimes life gets in the way.

PolarityMan

I think the argument for "the map is not the territory" is specious. Just because your representation can't be perfect doesn't mean there isn't any value in a better map. 

And more to the point current standard notation is woefully inadequate to describe modern music. We've dealt with the guitar in quite a lot of detail but what about things like electronic based music where the quality of the sound, as opposed to the note choce are often defining parts of the composition, things like filter sweeps, delay settings which are integral to the part, that kind of thing.

You could notate a dubstep song and give it to a pianist but what came out wouldn't bare much resemblance to the original for example.

frankus

PolarityMan said:

I think the argument for "the map is not the territory" is specious. Just because your representation can't be perfect doesn't mean there isn't any value in a better map. 

The statement is a reminder to keep making a better map

ChrisMusic

Total + 1 to that whole post @PolarityMan, (and the reminder from @frankus ).

PolarityMan said:  ...And more to the point current standard notation is woefully inadequate to describe modern music...

That was my reason for open wording at the start of this whole discussion, all things are in flux, there is certainly room for reappraisal of the relevance of standard notation, and for the exploration for a better way.

frankus

ChrisMusic said:

Hey @frankus, there are a series of things I am thinking of doing over a period of time.  Returning to playing the guitar again has given me a more unique perspective.

I found myself in a similar situation some years back.

At first I burned away at theory, then I took lessons and that was really frustrating and humbling but ultimately I think the only way to progress with any speed in a productive direction.

 It has been so many years that I have had to start pretty much from square one again, yet the enigma is that so much is hiding in the depths of memory, it just needs a bit of coaxing.

Or dropping entirely! Second time around I was far slower than I had been which forced me to observe my playing wasn't as melodic as it could be.

It took some lessons with Justin Sandercoe to figure out I was playing fast to avoid landing on weaker notes on a beat... the slower you play the more meaning each note has... it seems.

Also my vibrato needed a lot of undoing muscle memory

After those lessons came getting up on stage and that is when I totally lost respect for theory... all the theory in the world is useless if it's not applied in regular exercises. I nearly passed out first time I played in a band with professional backing players!

So I am re-approaching the learning process with an insight which I never had when I initially learnt so many years ago, and am hoping to share this on here, to see what other people make of it, and hopefully it will be of use to some folks too.

I think it is admirable to give from your own experience, if creating the approach yourself is part of the fun you won't mind the practice time sacrificed to develope the approach I decided I wanted to be a player and get rid of a mistaken idea I was some kind of scholar - so I bought and sold books till I found a set to study

So the short answer is "fingers", at least initially.    (note I have never been accused of being succinct

Cool, you got big hands? If so I'll be most interested in your findings

I am exploring the possibilities of this expedition as language rather than system.

In that case it'll probably be driven by need. We learn language through a need to communicate and express ourselves.

Good comment about systems being faith, not too sure about that, but worthy of contemplation me-thinks.  Good post.

Oh, and I am probably the only person in the UK not to have watched the Matrix trilogy.  My sort of thing, but sometimes life gets in the way.

Not sure you're missing too much re the Matrix, but this debate has ranged close to the foothills of The Architects speech in the last film