Chapeau! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 4:22 PM Subject: Re: Staff Notation/Tablature
> 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 > > > > > > > > >
