• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

What key are these pieces in?

#41
Originally posted by Howard K

No offence intended Chris - this is in no way directed at you - i appreciate you were discussing the point :)

- I cant sight read, but I'm damn sure it's better than tab... what's the point in a memner of the rhythm section reading music WITHOUT rhythm?!
Click to expand...

Oh I didn't see any reason to be offended from your post. Like you and Bruce, I too prefer standard notation. Though I feel so boneheaded in that I forgot the largest difference between the two that Bruce pointed out: rhythm. I have no idea why I failed to remember that significant difference. Most people use tab in conjunction with having heard the song already, so they have an inkling of the rhythm. Doesn't help much when trying to learn something that you've never heard before, though. Also, some tabbers have attempted to mark down rhythm indicators (ex. "4--4 means they're quarter notes" or something like that"), but they aren't very exact or favorable.

I have no enmity towards anyone that uses tab. But relying on it is definitely a crutch. The whole world of playing really does open up for you when you are at least familiar with standard notation. It did for me at least. I say know how to do both. It really doesn't hurt.

Richard: I haven't been studying standard notation all that long, so how does one go about learning how someone played a certain piece (as in what notes they struck on the fret board) by just standard notation alone? This is by no means a counter to what you said. I actually want to learn how to do this to better my playing. Any tips?


- Chris McDougall
 
#42
Originally posted by Infernal Affair

Richard: I haven't been studying standard notation all that long, so how does one go about learning how someone played a certain piece (as in what notes they struck on the fret board) by just standard notation alone? This is by no means a counter to what you said. I actually want to learn how to do this to better my playing. Any tips?
Click to expand...

To some extent, you're dependent on the edition of the music you use. I can talk about that more easily with regard to classical guitar music, because I've read a lot of that.

Suppose you want to learn a Bach bourree. Some of the editions will just show the notes, with maybe a few articulation marks, leaving the player to come up with his/her own fingerings. Others will use position markers (traditionally, Roman numerals), string indicators (on a guitar, the Arabic numbers 1 through 6 in little circles), and LH finger indicators (little tiny 1, 2, 3, or 4 next to the note). Now, it's rare for any edition to use these indicators for every single note, but you can often put things together by following the clues. For example, if you have a VIIth position marker extending over two measures, that pretty much tells you that you park your 1st finger around the 7th fret and finger the other notes from there. If you see a little Arabic 1 next to a low A, that's a clue that you're not supposed to play it as an open note. And so on.

The same principles can be applied to bass or any other stringed instrument. Though I'm not sure how many bass books out there are meticulously edited for position, fingering, etc. IMO fingering is less critical for bass, because most of the time, most players are dealing with one note at a time. On a classical guitar, there are many combinations of notes that simply can't be played if you don't follow a precise fingering; this just isn't as true of a bass.

But I must say, I'm not so sure that learning to cop *exactly* how somebody played something, fingeringwise, is necessarily the best road to becoming a better player. Learning *why* they played it is more fundamental, and from that point on, developing a way of playing the music that works for you is more useful than duplicating someone else's technical approach. Personally, I think it can be helpful to take a sequence of notes and then work out several different ways of fingering them. This will help you focus on rendering the notes rather than on only one method of getting at them.
 
#43
Originally posted by Richard Lindsey
(little tiny 1, 2, 3, or 4 next to the note)
Click to expand...

Y'know, I think fingering markings should be consistent across instruments. For those of us that play more than one instrument, it can be confusing.

I'm used to:

1 = Thumb
2 = Index
3 = Middle
4 = Ring
5 = Pinky

From playing the piano.

But with guitar etc. fretting hand fingerings, you get 1 = Index, 2 = Middle, 3 = Ring, 4 = Pinky.

Confusing!!


Just a thought.
 
#44
Originally posted by moley


Y'know, I think fingering markings should be consistent across instruments. For those of us that play more than one instrument, it can be confusing.

I'm used to:

1 = Thumb
2 = Index
3 = Middle
4 = Ring
5 = Pinky

From playing the piano.

But with guitar etc. fretting hand fingerings, you get 1 = Index, 2 = Middle, 3 = Ring, 4 = Pinky.

Confusing!!


Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Fair point. But I think the guitar method is actually more reasonable. I've never heard anybody refer to the index finger as the 2nd finger in any kind of conversation; it's always the 1st. Technically, by some views, the thumb is not even a finger at all--your hand thus includes five digits, comprising four fingers and a thumb. The LH thumb is almost never used in classical guitar.

You can, if you like, use T to represent the thumb. For the right hand in classical guitar, it's traditional for some reason to use Spanish abbreviations: p (for pulgar, thumb), i (for indice, index), m (for medio, middle), and a (for anular, ring).
 
#45
Originally posted by Richard Lindsey


Fair point. But I think the guitar method is actually more reasonable.

That'll be because you're a guitarist :D

I've never heard anybody refer to the index finger as the 2nd finger in any kind of conversation;

Have you ever had a conversation with a piano teacher? :D

it's always the 1st. Technically, by some views, the thumb is not even a finger at all--your hand thus includes five digits, comprising four fingers and a thumb. The LH thumb is almost never used in classical guitar.

You can, if you like, use T to represent the thumb. For the right hand in classical guitar, it's traditional for some reason to use Spanish abbreviations: p (for pulgar, thumb), i (for indice, index), m (for medio, middle), and a (for anular, ring).
Click to expand...

Sure - it doesn't really matter what names you give them, the idea is just that it's consistent across different instruments.

The 1 = thumb, 2 = index etc. thing makes perfect sense to me (more sense than thumb = T, index = 1 etc.) - but I guess that's just because it's what I'm used to.

Regardless of whether they're fingers or thumbs or whatever, you've got 5 digits, and it'd be helpful if they were referred to by the same numbers across all instruments.
 
#46
Originally posted by Richard Lindsey

The same principles can be applied to bass or any other stringed instrument. Though I'm not sure how many bass books out there are meticulously edited for position, fingering, etc. IMO fingering is less critical for bass, because most of the time, most players are dealing with one note at a time. On a classical guitar, there are many combinations of notes that simply can't be played if you don't follow a precise fingering; this just isn't as true of a bass.


Thanks for explaining, Richard. I've found the information that you and moley presented to be quite informative and helpful. Though I don't have very many music books that follow the method you talked about, it's still a good thing to know.


But I must say, I'm not so sure that learning to cop *exactly* how somebody played something, fingeringwise, is necessarily the best road to becoming a better player. Learning *why* they played it is more fundamental, and from that point on, developing a way of playing the music that works for you is more useful than duplicating someone else's technical approach. Personally, I think it can be helpful to take a sequence of notes and then work out several different ways of fingering them. This will help you focus on rendering the notes rather than on only one method of getting at them.
Click to expand...

Maybe I should have rephrased myself when I made the "better player" remark. What I meant to say was exactly what you pointed out: learning why someone played a piece a certain way, then determining what works for me. In general, studying various styles can lead me to becoming a better bass player, but it's not necessarily a direct cause and effect relationship. And what you mentioned about figuring out different patterns seems like a good idea. Actually I've been doing that whenever I learn a song by ear.


-Chris McDougall
 
#47
Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield


No, no - this is the just the "bashing those who say they're buying a Sadowsky, going to Berklee and then listen to my bass solo - although it has no notes:rolleyes:" forum!!
Click to expand...

1. Even if I do get a Sadowsky, which I probably wont (unless I can get straight A's in physics and trigonometry :rolleyes: ) it won't happen for another year.

2. I never said I wanted to go to Berklee. I made a topic asking about it, I was curious what it was like. Never, not even once, did I say I wanted to go there. If anything, I said I was considering it.

3. As I've said numerous times, that wasn't a "solo". I titled the thread "solo" to attract more views, and inside the topic I stated it was not a "solo", more of a "Hey look what I did in an hour with SFX and an editor, cool eh?" type thing.

4. Lay off.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back