Dear Tom, The purpose of notation is to enable the performer to reproduce music. To that extent the nature of the notation is determined by what the performer is expected to play. Let's look at specific examples:
a) A very simple single-line melody for a beginner on the lute. Tablature is easier than staff notation. With staff notation the player's brain has to think twice: first he reads something which tells him the pitch of a note; then he has to convert that pitch into deciding where the note is to be played on his instrument. Even if there is no choice of position on the neck, there is still that constant conversion of information going on in the player's brain. Tablature by-passes all that irrelevant information about pitch. It goes straight to the instrument, and our brain has just one job to do, not two. b) A fifteenth-century piece of music, where a lutenist will play a single melodic line with an extremely complex rhythm. The ideal notation would be staff notation, not tablature, because of the complex rhythms. Staff notation combines rhythm and pitch into a single note, whereas tablature separates them into two entities. The lutenist would be forever glancing up to the rhythm signs, his brain desperately tring to wed the complex rhythms with the tablature letters or numbers underneath. c) A piece of polyphony for three voices with complex rhythms. Tablature wins the day here, because joining three sets of intertwined complex rhythms into one set of rhythm signs simplifies what rhythm the player needs to consider. For example, a succession of dotted crotchets each followed by a quaver in one part, while the same thing occurs starting one crotchet later in another part, will look mighty complicated in staff notation. In tablature it will appear as a simple succession of quavers. The player would need only to read the first (or only) rhythm sign (quaver), and he could then concentrate on the letters or numbers on the stave without having to worry about rhythm at all. d) Music for a blind lutenist learning the lute from scratch. His teacher needs to tell him which string to pluck with his right hand, and at which fret he is to put his left-hand finger. That's two pieces of information for every note. Here German tablature is best, because both those pieces of information are combined into one symbol - a letter or a number. e) An early 17th-century song for an Italian guitarist to strum an accompaniment. He doesn't need the detail supplied by staff notation and tablature. Neither notation will suit his purpose. He just needs to know which chord to strum. The ideal notation for him is alfabeto, where all the common chords are given a letter of the alphabet. He reads just one letter for a five-note chord - just one piece of information to take in, not five. f) Most music from 1600-1750 (with a big "more or less"), where the harpsichord, lute, theorbo, harp, or any chordal instrument supplies the bass line, together with suitable harmony where appropriate or where possible. Figured bass is best here. All the brain needs to read is each bass note. If the harmony were written out in full, he would have too much to read. Instead he can busk whatever suits him, the occasion and his instrument, as long as he plays that all-important bass note. The occasional figure is all he needs to read to understand what harmony to play. The aim is to minimise the amount to be read, so that the player can concentrate on how he plays, and not clog his brain with having to filter out the essentials from an excess of information. -o-O-o- Tablature is one big con. Those who cannot read it (particularly those who are familiar with staff notation) are often amazed at the skill of the lutenist in learning to cope with what appears to be an incredibly complicated antique system of notation. "Wow! How on earth can you read that?" Lute players, on the other hand, smile, knowing that reading tablature is an absolute doddle. Best wishes, Stewart McCoy. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 11:27 AM Subject: Staff Notation/Tablature > 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 > > >
