The fact is tablature, at least Renaissance and Baroque tablatures, are much more accurate that as far as notation is concerned, than a conventional notation system. True it lacks certain things, such as how long bass notes are supposed to be held for, (although it is sometimes indicated). It also does not allow the performer to explore other fingering possibilities.
You say, "the key is often a mystery" and "what looks like a third in staff notation , can turn out to be anything between a second and a seventh...???". I have come to the lute, from the classical guitar world, with its very strict and conventional set of rules. The moment I understood tablature, I understood its superiority for the instrument. Over time, you will find that you will read tablature like staff notation. I myself, like many other lutenists, can sing you back a melody by just reading the tablature. It comes naturally when you are confident with your instrument. Sight reading becomes a breeze, (as a matter of fact, I find that learning by heart is the only drawback, because sight reading is so easy, one does not have to work out positions, and thus one becomes lazy in memorizing....). As for the key you are playing in, since when does one have to see the notes, to understand what key you are playing in? Ask any of the older jazz musicians or folk artists who learned music by ear and never learned how to read music....they don`t have a problem with the key. A jazzman will play you a standard in any key you want, at a moment`s notice, without knowing how to read music.. A conventional notation system is nothing but a crutch to lean on, drop the crutch and learn how to walk another way..... Why, then, would it be so wrong to use normal staff notation? One would then be in the same position as the guitarist BTW, guitar music back in Baroque times, was also written in tablature......so its nothing new... A conventional notation system is nothing but a crutch to lean on, drop the crutch and learn how to walk another way..... Bruno [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 > > > > > > >
