Yes Tom. But why do guitarists have to read from a single staff (transposed an octave)? I find that it really obscures the voice leading?
Miles Dempster On Tuesday, December 9, 2003, at 06:27 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Dear Howard and Vance, > > I was very interested to read your comments regarding the relative > virtues of > staff notation and tablature. Being a beginner, I find tablature means > I have > little or no idea which notes I am playing, whether I am supposed to > play a > fifth, an octave or indeed what interval is intended. Even the key is > often a > mystery (I do not have absolute pitch) What looks like a 'third' in > staff > notation can turn out to be anything between a second and a seventh. > The letter 'd' > in the first chord or two of Greensleeves, I discovered, represents > about > three entirely different notes. Of course my musical origins are in > staff > notation, and I am so used to hearing what I read before I even try to > play it, that > I find it very difficult to adapt to the new notation. I have managed, > am > beginning to recognise what is an octave, a scale, and the like, but > find > sight-reading very difficult. In staff notation one knows from the > context what comes > (or could come) next. To find a b-flat in a-major (to take the first > example > that occurs to me) would be highly significant, and not at all what > one would > expect. In tablature none of this seems possible, i.e. I have to read > letter > for letter (I imagine like some poor beginner in music, struggling to > read any > form of notation), rather than in what I would consider a 'total way'. > Why, > then, would it be so wrong to use normal staff notation? One would > then be in the > same position as the guitarist (and lute and guitar are not exactly > light > years apart), able to read and above all hear what was going on at a > glance. To > this beginner at least, that seems a definite advantage. Cheers > > Tom Beck > >
