Just curious... Can anyone here sight-read tab?

[oomo]

There's also a lot of context assumed by authors of written music (whether tab or standard notation).

A lot of tab is fairly messy and doesn't include rhythm information, but its creator probably assumes that the reader has some familiarity with the song/genre etc., and is likely to pick up the missing bits of info from listening. I.e. the author probably isn't assuming that it's going to be sight read at speed from someone totally unfamiliar with the song).

This is also true for a lot of music notation, depending on the context. E.g. for say Irish traditional music, it's assumed that players know the general form, where to place swing/emphasis/ornaments etc., how reels/polkas/jigs should sound, etc. - so these are almost never added to notation (there's plenty of discussion on other forums/videos out there on e.g. classically trained musicians failing to play traditional music "correctly" without having a background in the tradition to teach them all the unwritten rules of the style).

 

[vindibona1]

much of music written for electric bass and electric guitar assumes the player isn't a good reader of standard notation, and that is just fine. It's smart to know the best toolset for your target audience.

I have to agree, but to some degree disagree in favor of always, if possible attach standard notation to tab as often as humanly possible. For those who are good readers, sometimes the tab provide a good hint of fingerings that we might have done differently. But more importantly, having both might help a non-standard reader learn to read standard notation (if they put in the time and effort). The more I see tab attached to standard notation the easier it is to understand, as long as it's clean and accurate.

 

[N4860]

Yea, you're right that I was extreme about my reaction. It does describe the notes and placement in rhythm. It doesn't describe the fact that there are 16th beat rests after many of the notes in the intro, the tempo changes, several notes are staccato versus legato (short versus held until the next note).

When I see YYZ transcriptions, and we've all seen many, you normally see standard notation and tab along with it. The tab is not necessary for someone who reads music fully since string and finger info is part of the standard notation toolset.... as long as the person who transcribed it wrote the standard notation correctly and fully...., but much of music written for electric bass and electric guitar assumes the player isn't a good reader of standard notation, and that is just fine. It's smart to know the best toolset for your target audience.

So this is incomplete - on it's own, as it is shown in this example, and will not teach you how to play it like geddy. Full transcriptions all over the web do include that information, normally by including standard notation along with the tab.

This tab example IS useful, and does work well to tell you what notes to play and the rhythms of the notes within the speed set at the start of the song. So yes it is a helpful learning tool.

But it is a great example of tab that is missing information, which is included in standard notation normally.

Maybe the example was just an example of it that is over simplified (IE: missing information) for the sake of this discussion?

Honestly, I just put that example up more as a way to show people that there are in fact versions of tab that do show the rhythm. Yes, it is simplified in that it doesn't show every exact detail in that particular tab, but that is more to do with the person that produced the tab. My point is that it IS possible to add in those 16th note rests, staccato notes, etc. It's just up to the person doing the tab to put those in. But that same level of detail can also be missing from standard notation. Even with standard notation it is up to the person notating it to include those details and I'm sure you know that not everything that is notated in standard notation is perfect.

 

[Cal03]

I already knew standard notation before picking up bass, but I did need TAB when I got started. Nowadays I can do fine without it, though I still find TAB useful when used alongside standard notation for really getting down the specifics of a part. I sometimes even write out the TAB in MuseScore on a second staff to the part notated in standard, and there is rhythmic information conveyed in the tablature. But that is always subordinate to the standard notation.

Still, I run into situations where having a TAB would be really helpful. I have a couple of basses tuned in fifths, and so when I play them I have to figure everything out on my own since there's very few resources for fifths tuned EBG. A TAB for Overjoyed in fifths tuning would be nice to have right now.

-Cal.

 

[King Harvest]

Yeah, I can do that. Not in a vacuum, but if someone who knows the song starts the song, I can pull up the tab and play along pretty easily. I've heard and played enough music to make educated guesses about note duration, emphasis, etc. Of course it's easier the 2nd time through.

 

[Manticore]

Has anyone here who is arguing that tab is capable of being sight read ever actually done it in a performance or recording session setting? Or even a rehearsal?

I've played 2+ hour shows of music that I've never seen or heard before on many occasions. @JimmyM has given examples in the past of where he's done the same. @dkelley gave an example of a rehearsal where he sight-read big band charts earlier in the thread and he's also described playing orchestral works by sight-reading charts without the benefit of a record.

Does anyone have any concrete examples of instances where you've shown up to a performance, recording session or rehearsal and played through a significant amount of music that you'd never heard before using tabs?

It's one thing to argue in the abstract that one is theoretically capable of sight-reading tab, but does it ever actually happen in the real world? Because sight-reading standard notation charts happens all the time in a wide variety of real-world settings.

I too have sight-read standard notation on gigs and in rehearsal. Being able to read well is a great way to capture sub gigs and get through rehearsals quickly. Going over new material with a large band (horns and keys) virtually requires standard notation; none of the other musicians know anything about tab, and the arranger's time is too valuable to prepare something different for a bass or guitar player that can't read. I've never been asked to use tab; I can, but I can typically capture a song better and faster with either standard notation or using my ears.

 

[dkelley]

The way standard notation is created is SPECIFICALLY to make it easier to read quickly, sight reading without ever heard the music before, without failure.

Tab is not designed that way. Tab is designed to help you learn the part specifically for your stringed instrument, and focuses on string/finger information primarily. That is it's primary goal.

Standard notation also shows you what finger to place where on the instrument, although again assumes a level of standardized knowledge of playing the instrument that makes it absolutely clear what the player should do, without having to actually list the finger and string for every note. It gives you the stuff where you change or do something special, and the rest of it you play in the correct position using standard rules for playing your instrument. Therefore, the fingering and string information in standard notation is 100% accurate as well, as much as the composer cared to tell you how you should play it. Many don't.... but if the composer doesn't, then often the composer works with a string player to add those details to any complex solo instrument notation, for the publisher to include.

When playing music on most instruments, if you are shown a chord or a series of notes, you know how to play them without being told what finger and string to use.

Right from grade 8 high school band onwards, bass players read standard notation. Even in elementary school for bands that use bass guitar at that level.

It works faster for sight reading once you are used to it, and leaves no room for guesswork. It CAN leave room, intentionally, for the artist to choose how to do things themselves, if desired.

But again, if you go back to my bartok violin concerto example, it even uses standard Italian musical terminology to indicate to the performer to intensify the sound with more passion... which has literal meaning for the performer (faster, more intense vibrato, etc). There really are extremely clear instructions in standard notation.

My bartok example even explicitly tells me EVERY FINGER AND STRING TO USE. it is 100% complete. Looking at it, every classical violinist who is advanced enough to play in the very high positions required and knows harmonics etc on their instrument, every one will play it the same way (unless they choose to override the suggested fingering).

Anyone playing from standard notation and finding that they don't have enough information to play their instrument exactly as instructed are experience one of two problems, most likely:
- 1 - the player may not know how to play a note on their instrument following standard rules for playing string instruments in positions. That isn't too surprising, as most bass players aren't taught music in that way. But it is still a requirement for reading music from standard notation.
- 2 - the music being read is improperly notated. That doesn't happen in classical and jazz, normally. It also doesn't happen in commercially published music, normally. It DOES happen in real books, fake books, and free online suppliers of music, quite often. So buy music from the publisher, if it is available.

Now, all of that being said, people here have correctly pointed out that much of popular music isn't written out and published using standard notation, at least not professionally. And the stuff found in magazines and online may well be done by someone who isn't actually notating it correctly or completely. And there is much more tab that is amateur and poorly done than there is manuscript. That's just a a supply and demand fact.

In those cases - well, that sucks... and it's a good thing we all have ears

 

[LBS-bass]

And the stuff found in magazines and online may well be done by someone who isn't actually notating it correctly or completely.

I would add that much of this happens on purpose. It's dumbed-down so that beginners can tackle it, because those are the people looking for those resources in many cases- they are learners, not pro players.

 

[Cal03]

One more thing I would like to add. For woodwind players who switch between different sizes of instruments, standard notation is in essence tablature. For example, a beginner alto saxophonist learns written G4 as first, second, and third fingers down on left hand. Then if the same saxophonist learns tenor saxophone, they will read music transposed down a fourth from alto. They see written G4 on their sheet music as also first, second, and third fingers down on left hand. Of course the reason this works is because there is usually only one standard fingering for each note, and any alternate fingerings are either specified in the sheet music or up to the player's discretion.

When I first got a fiver, I would sometimes treat the bottom 4 strings as EADG transposed down a fourth. Then I can read standard notation or tablature for EADG, with everything just sounding a fourth lower. Nowadays when I play my fiver I usually read in standard and use 5-line TAB when needed. Maybe I could try it again to see if I can get away with never using the G string...

 

[Seanmo]

Tab is designed to help you learn the part specifically for your stringed instrument, and focuses on string/finger information primarily. That is it's primary goal.

I would argue that the vast majority of tabs were made as tabs primarily because the author didn't have the tools and/or knowledge to do it any other way. I could post literally hundreds of tabs or bass sheet music for songs that would be more accurate (note-wise) for those songs than ANY previously published by anyone (including "official" ones published by Hal Leonard), but I lack the musical education to do it properly, so I stay in my lane. If I could produce sheet music of the quality of Lee Nunn, I would. And every time I painstakingly finish a new Rocksmith transcription of a song by using revolutionary new software to isolate the bass track, I wish specifically I could share it with you folks right here.

Tabs can be valuable even to those who sight-read "real" music, if the goal is to get an accurate transcription of a part that is not easily decipherable otherwise. This guy does an excellent job of making tabs that have the proper string/finger location, note length, staccatos, etc. If he was typical of tab makers, there wouldn't be eight pages and counting of replies to this topic and the topic would not be all that controversial. That said, I always wish any transcription was in GuitarPro format or PDF rather than tab as it vastly increases my workload when I have to use the latter no matter how accurate.

 

[dkelley]

I would add that much of this happens on purpose. It's dumbed-down so that beginners can tackle it, because those are the people looking for those resources in many cases- they are learners, not pro players.

very astute.... as always

Thanks. that's a very good point. It makes sense... the person creating it doesn't want to make the music so hard to read that the anticipated target reader can't have fun and get the most effective use out of it.

 

[J_Bass]

It's the trend, now.

It has to be easy. Effortless. Dumb it down. Or else nobody wants it.

 

[BigBluez]

That's a pretty simple bass line from a very popular song. The tab notation was clearer than most. It didn't have the annoying hyphens between the notes that to me are visual distractions. I was able to hunt-and-peck my way through it at a reduced tempo. And because of the simplicity and knowing the tune THAT was possible. However, had you given me standard notation I'd be able to play it up to tempo out of the gate. Even without the title I would know how it sounds by looking at it.

Agreed... I'm not saying it's as efficient/good as standard notation. But it can teach me a tune, yes, especially if I already sort of know it. My point was that some tab does include rhythmic information.

 

[dkelley]

I would argue that the vast majority of tabs were made as tabs primarily because the author didn't have the tools and/or knowledge to do it any other way. I could post literally hundreds of tabs or bass sheet music for songs that would be more accurate (note-wise) for those songs than ANY previously published by anyone (including "official" ones published by Hal Leonard), but I lack the musical education to do it properly, so I stay in my lane. If I could produce sheet music of the quality of Lee Nunn, I would. And every time I painstakingly finish a new Rocksmith transcription of a song by using revolutionary new software to isolate the bass track, I wish specifically I could share it with you folks right here.

Tabs can be valuable even to those who sight-read "real" music, if the goal is to get an accurate transcription of a part that is not easily decipherable otherwise. This guy does an excellent job of making tabs that have the proper string/finger location, note length, staccatos, etc. If he was typical of tab makers, there wouldn't be eight pages and counting of replies to this topic and the topic would not be all that controversial. That said, I always wish any transcription was in GuitarPro format or PDF rather than tab as it vastly increases my workload when I have to use the latter no matter how accurate.

Interesting, and yea that's totally fair if that has been your experience. With sheet music, as with everything, there is stuff out there (mostly online junk) that is poorly done or simplified to the point of being only vaguely similar to the original.... but there is a target audience for that also (raw beginners). There are piano versions of popular songs that are only vaguely recognizable, just because the target audience is 10 year old students. Cuz again, anyone who is writing traditional notation properly, intended for professional use, includes all of the important information to play the music exactly like the original, or like it was originally intended (since original recordings are not always perfect either).

So if you are playing in an organized jazz band or classical ensemble, you will see that pretty much all commercially published music is fully notated and a good group of musicians can sight read it without errors. They might make mistakes playing their instruments, but the reading shouldn't be the issue (other than all humans eventually make mistakes, no matter how experienced). It must be that way - hiring a group of 15 to 100 professional musicians to record a piece of music for a soundtrack costs A LOT OF MONEY LoL, so the music is notated PERFECTLY before they ever get it. The players are all professionals who read and play exactly what is on the page and listen extremely well and follow a conductor extremely well.

I would imagine that experienced rocksmith style notation players could do that also... it's pretty amazing really what persistence can come up with. But it isn't a standard used for ensemble reading, and most musicians don't quickly jot stuff down in that. If you want to quickly jot stuff down, you write chords and bars, and fill in an occasional hook or melody. Personally I do it on staff paper or write out the staff quickly for lead lines. But I've done it with notes names also. Whatever gets the point down on paper fast so I can read it, record it, and get paid LoL

 

[vindibona1]

So if you are playing in an organized jazz band or classical ensemble, you will see that pretty much all commercially published music is fully notated and a good group of musicians can sight read it without errors. They might make mistakes playing their instruments, but the reading shouldn't be the issue (other than all humans eventually make mistakes, no matter how experienced). It must be that way - hiring a group of 15 to 100 professional musicians to record a piece of music for a soundtrack costs A LOT OF MONEY LoL, so the music is notated PERFECTLY before they ever get it. The players are all professionals who read and play exactly what is on the page and listen extremely well and follow a conductor extremely well.

I think you'd be suprised. I haven't done any recording for major motion pictures or anything, but have played original pieces that have yet been played by other groups or recorded, and there is still a fair amount of errata, mostly from transcribing from the score to individual charts. Often the MD picks up on it and we change stuff by hand on our parts. Sometimes we'll pick up on something that goes under the radar, often a sharp, flat or natural that just got "mistranscribed". Even parts that have been out for a long time still haven't been corrected by the publisher. I'm sure you see that. It's no big deal because the "ears" are SO big that you hear and get it corrected it right away.

Not to get to far afield from the thread, and I've never had a conductor like these, but it's kind of disconcerting to see some conductors' stick (can't think of any names right now) far ahead of the music, obviously not beating time, but conducting style. I wonder what it's like to sit under one of these guys. Have you?

 

[dkelley]

I think you'd be suprised. I haven't done any recording for major motion pictures or anything, but have played original pieces that have yet been played by other groups or recorded, and there is still a fair amount of errata, mostly from transcribing from the score to individual charts. Often the MD picks up on it and we change stuff by hand on our parts. Sometimes we'll pick up on something that goes under the radar, often a sharp, flat or natural that just got "mistranscribed". Even parts that have been out for a long time still haven't been corrected by the publisher. I'm sure you see that. It's no big deal because the "ears" are SO big that you hear and get it corrected it right away.

Not to get to far afield from the thread, and I've never had a conductor like these, but it's kind of disconcerting to see some conductors' stick (can't think of any names right now) far ahead of the music, obviously not beating time, but conducting style. I wonder what it's like to sit under one of these guys. Have you?

No, I wouldn't.

I've done all of that too. I'm not talking about a composer that can't notate. I'm talking about the pros who make money doing this. I've premiered many works be composers (true premieres, the first performance of new music by a composer). I can count on one hand the number of times there were errors in the charts... and it was when the charts were written by the composer, without a human editor and proper transcribers in the chain. Small or zero budget. Yes, errors happen. Those are not the scenarios I described, and I thought I was clear about that when I specifically mentioned the money making aspect for recording soundtracks and the costs involved etc etc.

And a conductors "stick" is not far ahead of the music. To work in an orchestra, you need to learn to follow a conductor. The beat isn't the downstroke. The EXPRESSION and indication of any upcoming time change is the downstroke. The beat of a conductor (end of up stroke, with changes in tempo affecting the orchestra with a lag that is unanimous in the group as is standard) is followed EXACTLY by the musicians, as you can witness by watching a professional orchestra perform. Like with my bartok violin example regarding fingering, a conductor doesn't need to sit there and remind you that, at a given tempo, beats 2, 3, and 4 come in rhythmic sequence after beat 1. The musicians do that.

ALL great conductors do this. Yes, of course I have played under them... I played in professional orchestras for years. EVERY orchestra does. It works perfectly, and has for hundreds of years.

I DO understand you not knowing about it - because it takes time to understand how that visual communication works, and you have to learn how to do it - there is science behind it. But it does work, obviously, or orchestras would be unable to be perfectly united.

 

[eadg52]

I happen to be acquainted with Marcel Becker, bass section leader of the Liverpool Philharmonic, a world class orchestra led by Vasily Petrenko. My band at the time was a gypsy jazz quintet and another of the phil orchestra, Rob Shepley played violin with us when free at a pub gig when his friend, Marcel walked in to watch. I chatted to him during a break, obviously graced by his presence and asked if he'd like to play a song or two but he refused, stating he only read what he played - NO improvisation. And that will give you an idea of how good a reader he is. Believe me, if any of the orchestra make even the tiniest fluff Vasily would be on to it in a flash. That is the pressure they work under.
I'm self taught and though my dad was a musician, a trumpeter, always on to me to learn to read I doggedly pursued my own path and chose to sink or swim by learning by ear, which is no bad thing - I am happy to step in with any band without holding anything up but in my 40s I morphed into big scenarios which I enjoyed tremendously so I taught myself to read notation and within 12 months I was playing Basie, Rich, Neil Hefty arrangements, even bought the band an arrangement of 'The Chicken' that Jaco's big band did...the thought of reading tunes like that from Tab is laughable when you only have ONE chance to get it right, or 'Flight To Nassau' at 170 bpm with a walking line...you barely have chance to breathe. Another instance; a local singer with a bit of a 'name' booked 10 of us to play on his CD. We had 4 hours of studio time for 10 tracks in which we managed all the tracks with a max of 3 tracks of each song, mostly just two run throughs, all sight read.
I've come across these threads before and there is always some reticence about tab readers to learn notation which surprises me as tab is harder to decipher than dots and more importantly, as others have mentioned, there is no accurate means to denote time. Time is the killer when sight reading, not where to put your fingers, a chart leaves it up to yourself how and where to fret the note, something you need to know if you want to be recognised as a bassist, and that has little to with whether you can read or not.
Funny but I know a quite few bassists who are much more accomplished than myself that can't read a note but would balk at the gigs I get, many simple to me, but beyond them because they don't read, so in that sense they should the take relatively small time it takes for them to do so, don't you think?

 

[jdthaddeus]

After years locked in my room with nothing but tab, yes I can sight read tab now for guitar. I can even read guitar chords instantly in tab because I've seen them over and over so many times. Bass is much easier to follow than guitar (many less notes to read).

If I look at the tab I can hum or hear the song in my head. It took a lot of torturous hours with nothing else at my disposal but tab.

Yes, standard notation is easier once you have the knowledge to read it and execute it.

 

[dkelley]

One more thing I would like to add. For woodwind players who switch between different sizes of instruments, standard notation is in essence tablature. For example, a beginner alto saxophonist learns written G4 as first, second, and third fingers down on left hand. Then if the same saxophonist learns tenor saxophone, they will read music transposed down a fourth from alto. They see written G4 on their sheet music as also first, second, and third fingers down on left hand. Of course the reason this works is because there is usually only one standard fingering for each note, and any alternate fingerings are either specified in the sheet music or up to the player's discretion.

When I first got a fiver, I would sometimes treat the bottom 4 strings as EADG transposed down a fourth. Then I can read standard notation or tablature for EADG, with everything just sounding a fourth lower. Nowadays when I play my fiver I usually read in standard and use 5-line TAB when needed. Maybe I could try it again to see if I can get away with never using the G string...

that's an interesting point, although I disagree with your categorization of it being "in essence tablature".

Transposing instruments have always transposed what is played on their own. I wouldn't call it "in essence tablature", since tab is a different notation system completely from standard notation. Transposing instruments play standard notation a certain interval off (higher or lower, like C comes out as Bb)) than the "concert" pitch (where C comes out as C). Nearly all instruments you blow through (in most common musical groups) are not in C, with the exception of some double reed instruments, and an occasional bass clef brass instrument.

That doesn't make the notation equivalent to tab. Tablature notation would be showing one line for each key or valve on the instrument, rather than the notes on a scale, and in the case of wind instruments, most particularly for valve brass instruments, it would also have to have an indication of which harmonic you play via variations in air speed, lip tension, air hole size, aim of the breath (for wind instruments like flute), and so forth. Playing the right note on trumpet, french horn etc is REALLY difficult for many people at first, because there are only 3 valves normally, and 12 notes in an octave, and multiple octaves. How would you write that in tab?

So it ain't tablature at all.

 

[Febs]

So it ain't tablature at all.

Right. The bass is also a transposing instrument, and the fact that standard notation written for bass is transposed an octave from concert pitch does not make that standard notation into tablature.