Tablature vs. staff notation

[Eugene]

...and if you believe either is, you're probably wrong...at least in some situations...maybe...

I was inspired by a tab vs. staff skirmish unfolding in a thread where it wasn't intended.

Here are a few of my rants pieced together from other (mostly guitar-centric) cyberforums. #Warning: it gets a little long.

The point was made in that other thread that publishers often insist on both to appeal to all. #I think that does happen with some frequency, but may be a mistake. #I have passed on publications to have used space inefficiently in setting staff notation and tablature in single systems. #The intent may be to both help tablature readers to interpret rhythm and help staff notation readers with left-hand fingering. #Unfortunately, such a scheme makes every given piece require twice as many pages (and twice as many page turns). #Most musicians use one or the other system, and many just aren't very tolerant of the other.

Writing plucked and fretted music in standard notation is a relatively new phenomenon. From the first half of the 1500s when such music first appeared until the late 1700s, most plucked music was written in tablature. The formats were a little different than modern tab, but it was tablature.

There are advantages to both systems, but overall, I favor the advantages offered by standard notation. Frankly, I find the typical modern tablature without clear indications for note duration to be of extremely limited usefulness. There is no way to learn to play a piece of music as its writer intended from such tab if you have not heard the piece before to have some notion of intended note duration. Even historic tablatures that did indicate note durations couldn't indicate different durations for notes initiated at the same time.

One tremendous advantage of standard notation is that it is universal amongst musicians on other instruments. It makes communication of your instrument's music much easier to the world at large, independent of any cryptic notation that depends upon intimate familiarity with an intended open tuning. If a composer needs to indicate fingering in a tricky passage, there are easy means to do so for both right and left hands in staff notation.

If playing early instruments with a body of dedicated repertoire in tablature, you should probably know how to read its tablature. #Many older instruments strung in courses of paired strings had some courses tuned reentrantly or in octaves. #Courses in octaves often functioned in either, both, or to blur a transition between octaves to accommodate a limited range in scalar passages. #In transcribing to staff notation from historic tablatures, it can be very difficult to relay a composer's intent for octave or reentrant courses.

A couple examples of staff-notation transcriptions having difficulty with original composition in tablature: #

R. de Visee was a French guitarist in the late 1600s. #Consensus is that he favored the reentrant tuning detailed by his mentor Corbetta: a-a, d'-d, g-g, b-b, e' (both a strings one octave above the modern guitar's A and the d in 12-string-guitar-like octaves). Strizich published a modern edition of de Visee's guitar music some decades ago. He retuned his A to a to emulate reentrant tuning and notated actual pitch in context. The problem was it was often very difficult to decipher which string/course de Visee had originally notated in his tablature from Strizich's staff-notation transcriptions. Much of what happened on the high-retuned "low" a string could have as easily have occurred on the pitchwise nearby g or b strings. The context didn't always make it clear which string should be used; the result was terribly awkward to impossible fingerings if misinterpreted. I found it to be a very difficult edition from which to actually play music on guitar.

I actually worked as a proofreader for this next example. Oscar Chilesotti was a late 19th-/early 20th-c. musicologist who transcribed a 16th-c. lute manuscript to staff notation. A fair number of pieces from Respighi's Ancient Airs and Dances were harvested from Chilesotti's work. The original manuscript has since been lost. Much of my proofreading of Ophee's new edition was pointing out where Chilesotti's single-octave decisions for octave-strung courses were reassessed and reassigned. #None of those decisions were necessarily wrong, not Chilesotti's nor Ophee's; they just demonstrate the difficulty of making such music workable for single-strung instruments via staff notation where the original was ambiguously octaved tablature.

The fact is that serious modern classical guitarists (I guess they're purists) who actually get paid to play unanimously read standard notation. Almost all professional lutenists and performers of baroque music on 5-course guitar (I guess they're purists too) use tablature (or really cryptic, obscure notation systems like alfabeto), as it was originally written. I believe that you'll be doing yourself a disservice, limiting yourself, if you don't take some time to understand the basics of the notation system that went into writing the music you'd like to play on the instrument of your choice, staff notation or tablature.

[JimD]

I agree with most of your points but I think it bears repeating that the overall standard notation is more useful in "professional situations."

I play some lute as well and have learned to read several of the tablatures fairly fluently -- all except German tab
The usefulness of these tabs has been in learning solo literature and the song repertoire (voice accompanied by lute).

In ensemble situations, I have always been given standard notation or a figured bass to read from.

In other situations, it has been like this:

(guitar, mandolin, mandocello, banjo (4 & 5 string), bouzouki, lute, charango etc.)
--playing with orchestras (Gershwin, Mahler, Bernstein etc.) -- notation
--opera pits (Mozart, Schiff etc.) -- notation
--theater pits (well over 100 productions of several dozen different shows) -- notation
--chamber music (17th-21st century music) -- notation, figured bass
--recording sessions -- notation or by ear
--traditional music (Irish, American, Latin American, Eastern European) -- by ear (rarely notation)
--Jazz -- by ear or notation (Real Book)

and back when I was starting to play professionally (many years ago):

--rock, blues and country bands in clubs and for weddings -- almost entirely by ear with the very rare lead sheet

Being from the Northeast, if there were chord sheets written out for recording or gigs, they have always been in standard chord symbols. Though it has never come up for me, I'm sure in other parts of the country you may see Nashville number notation.

So to sum up:

In the professional situations that I have found myself in for 30 years, I have NEVER been asked to read from tablature. If I couldn't read the notation fluently, I never would have been asked back.

I think we do a disservice to younger players, if we imply that the USEFULNESS of tablature is equal to that of notation -- unless the intent is to limit the competition for professional work.

[JeffD]

I never learned tab, as I started music with a woodwind and learned mandolin already reading notation.

Having the repertoire of most other treble cleff instruments readily available to pick through is a gigantic advantage. Most of my music is violin (or fiddle) music, with some piano and vocal sheet music thrown in. I have very little music written "for the mandolin".

I will readily admit however, that I have bumped into numerous occations where a little tab would have helped. There are several tunes in the Irish fiddle tradition and New England contra dance tradition that can only really be played if you kind of pivot around a fixed double stop, a technique that did not come easily to me and which I could have learned easier with tab. In addition there is some Bach in which I spend a lot of time figuring out how best to finger, and a little tab would just cut through and get me playing faster.

I think the violin tradition of notation with finger numbers for specific fingering is probably the best compromise.

While I agree that tab is probably easier to "get", for that reason alone I think it should be learned only after reading standard notation. I know too many players who quickly gain some competance and confidence with the tab, and then are loath to go back and be a beginner again to learn notation.

[John Flynn]

While I agree that tab is probably easier to "get", for that reason alone I think it should be learned only after reading standard notation.

I think for serious musicians, that is good advice. But I also think it is important to appreciate the other end of the spectrum. I used to be associated with a school that teaches people to play roots music in ensemble settings. Many of these people are novices or pure beginners. Some are attempting to fulfill a lifetime dream of playing music. They also had to summon up a lot of courage to even be there. The school teaches playing by ear as the primary method, but I saw that several of these beginners were really helped by tab. I think some of them would have given up early on without it. Forcing them to learn notation would have only made made matters worse.

Also, I said in another thread, I read notation, but I still find tab to be a useful "shorthand." It is easier for me to write down musical ideas quickly.

I had the great experience to visit the Music Museum in Paris once. They had a whole exhibit on notation. There have been, and still are, several systems of musical notation. One historical system even used little symbols that looked like stick animals, each symbol signifying a different note! The documentation in this exhibit claimed that while the the current system of notation had been around for a long time, it only became the standard when one of the King Louies mandated it for his court musicians.

The reason I bring this up is that notation, tab, and anything else out there are just tools. As the saying goes, if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. People who know notation well will tend to think it is the only way to go. But the end result is to make music, which is sound, not ink on a page. I know a lot of great musicians who not only don't read music, but would likely have never been helped at all in developing thier great styles by reading music. For me, it's the end result that counts, not how you get there.

[Eugene]

...I think it bears repeating that the overall standard notation is more useful in "professional situations."

I agree. #I think "professional situations" where tablature is useful are limited to early-music specialists and then to baroque music and earlier. #I have even heard rumors of a certain lutenist transcribing music from various tablature formats to French for performance!

However, if you have no intent of being a modern professional, commit your musical time to whatever you'd like, but do so without jealousy criticising "serious" music-making efforts that rely upon staff notation.

[JimD]

I think some of them would have given up early on without it. Forcing them to learn notation would have only made made matters worse.

The problem is that people have been convinced that notation is hard to learn.

It isn't.

I just don't know why people think it has to be one or the other. For a mandolin player, being able to read standard opens the entire violin repertoire for exploration. That alone makes the effort worthwhile. For communicating the nuances of the mandolin, Tab can be much less ambiguous.

If an author prefers not to include Tab as part of the main book then an addendum should be provided. This gives the user of the book the opportunity to check the "answers" to be sure he/she is doing it correctly. Without the Tab a student will need the services of a teacher in order to be sure he/she is not going astray.

Most "instruction" books in the past were written specifically to be used along with the services of a teacher. Tab was not provided because the teacher was indeed a required part of the instructional process. Teachers were also the main vendors of the instructional books.

[JimD]

There really is no need to check the answers because notation is actually more precise than tab.

Finger and string numbers are often incorporated into the notation.

[Eugene]

Finger and string numbers are often incorporated into the notation.

Indeed. Again, "If a composer needs to indicate fingering in a tricky passage, there are easy means to do so for both right and left hands in staff notation," and such stuff can be as mandolin-specific as any tablature, even including pick strokes.

There really is no need to check the answers because notation is actually more precise than tab.

Finger and string numbers are often incorporated into the notation.

It doesn't matter how precise the notation is, if it is being interpreted incorrectly it will be played wrong.

The expert who is writing the notation will tend to put finger and string numbers in where he thinks they are needed. The less experienced player will tend to be LOST and unable to find his way out.

The refusal to provide Tab in a method book is simply that nose-in-the-air attitude some people like to affect in order to make others think they are something special. That "You aren't good enough to learn from me" attitude that makes music so special.

[JeffD]

In the other thread someone said:

"Without Tab it isn't a Mandolin book. It is a book of music that can be played on the Mandolin but that requires the player to interpret the music to the mandolin. It cannot be "the most comprehensive American mandolin method published in nearly a century" because it does not provide the explicit information that would make it specific to the mandolin."

This makes it sound like notation is a kind of "piano tab" and tab is for the mandolin. In reality, the mandolin plays music, and music is written these days in musical notation. Mandolin tab, in its modern incarnation, is designed as a short cut, a way around notaiton, so that folks would not be put off by notation, and could get on to enjoying the mandolin.

And as such it works and to that extent it is a good thing. It can't hurt to get folks playing, however it is done.

Classical music written specifically for the mandolin is not written in tab, as would be implied by the above statement. Someone who wanted to learn the mandolin specific classical repertoire would learn to read music.

[JimD]

There really is no need to check the answers because notation is actually more precise than tab.

Finger and string numbers are often incorporated into the notation.

It doesn't matter how precise the notation is, if it is being interpreted incorrectly it will be played wrong.

The expert who is writing the notation will tend to put finger and string numbers in where he thinks they are needed. The less experienced player will tend to be LOST and unable to find his way out.

The refusal to provide Tab in a method book is simply that nose-in-the-air attitude some people like to affect in order to make others think they are something special. That "You aren't good enough to learn from me" attitude that makes music so special.

OK -- here we go again with the "elitist" argument.
Rather than address that obvious effort to antagonize, I'll answer your other point.

There is no issue of "interpretation" because notation is precise.

[Scott Tichenor]

The refusal to provide Tab in a method book is simply that nose-in-the-air attitude some people like to affect in order to make others think they are something special. That "You aren't good enough to learn from me" attitude that makes music so special.

I suppose I could just remove this comment, because it's clearly made with intent to flame. You're entitled to that opinion, but it's your paradigm. I find that general attitude to be particularly offensive, and I have virtually no interest in this discussion or preference of one over the other. Possibly some resort to this kind of name calling for tablature only books. Perhaps I've missed those comments.

As with the other thread, if this can't be discussed without resorting to below the belt blows then I'll just close it down, but I'm not ready to do that yet.

[Eugene]

The refusal to provide Tab in a method book is simply that nose-in-the-air attitude some people like to affect in order to make others think they are something special. That "You aren't good enough to learn from me" attitude that makes music so special.

I really disagree. #There are a great many notation systems and no shame in choosing any one or subset to use. #Alfabeto hasn't appeared in guitar books for hundreds of years and its exclusion has nothing to do with a "nose in the air" attitude. #Expecting any author to cater to personal preferences for any notation system they haven't addressed is every bit as stubborn and elitist. #Pick what you'd like of the authors you'd like. #If you want to access their way of writing, learn to do so whether it's Mair in staff notation, Bartolotti in mixed alfabeto-tablature, de Visee in French tablature, or Bibey in modern tablature. #Just be aware of the limitations associated with any/all.

[Eugene]

Sorry, Scott. I really didn't intend to instigate a flame war. Ah well...

[mandelect]

JimD @ Jan. 03 2008, 15:14

Finger and string numbers are often incorporated into the notation.

"Often incorporated" - therefore, not always incorporated? In which case tablature could be very useful, and possibly more precise in this instance?

It is likely that there are a great many more non-professional musicians in the world than there are professionals; many of these musicians did not learn using notation or tablature, but by ear. Some musicians exist in cultures in which the use of standard notation & tablature is widespread - some do not. In western culture where notation and tablature is popular, many musicians still manage to excel without the use of either; sometimes, unschooled musicians can & do overcome their limitations (in technique & knowledge of notation/theory etc) to come up with something fresh, inventive and inspiring.

JeffD @ Jan. 03 2008, 14:22

While I agree that tab is probably easier to "get", for that reason alone I think it should be learned only after reading standard notation.

It doesn't make sense to suggest that there is one universally correct way of learning music.

Eugene's topic title, and opening sentence say it all:

...and if you believe either is, you're probably wrong...at least in some situations...maybe...

Happy New Year guys!

[CraigF]

I would like to say that I have nothing against TAB. Some may have misunderstood the intent of my post in the other thread. TAB has merits just like notation.

For Lute, Banjo, etc. where different tunings are common, TAB is very useful.

For instruments that don't vary from a standard tuning (like Classical Mandolin), I feel notation is better but that's my personal preference. But, I have yet to see music for Classical Mandolin written in TAB (other's with more experience correct me if I'm wrong here).

A lot of Lute TAB has been adapted to Mandolin. Here it needs to be transcribed to fit Mandolin and (from my experience) is transcribed into notation rather than Mandolin TAB. Some, like Allan Alexander, do both notation and TAB.

So, my point about Marilynn's book is that using notation only serves her intended audience.

[JeffD]

The refusal to provide Tab in a method book is simply that nose-in-the-air attitude some people like to affect in order to make others think they are something special. That "You aren't good enough to learn from me" attitude that makes music so special.

Not at all. A method book is teaching a formal way of playing music on a mandolin. Music, being written in musical notation, is played on the mandolin by reading notation.

If you prefer tab, there are any number of ways of translating notation into tab. But it seems perfectly appropriate to me that a method book that teaches a formally correct way(s) of playing the mandolin would not include tab.

[JeffD]

There is a case where I find tab essential, however, in the case of old time music played with alternate tunings. Usually the notation for such tunes is as the music sounds, and with an alternate tuning I need the tab in order to play it. I can't sight read tab like I can notation, but I can get through it and learn the tune.

[John Flynn]

The problem is that people have been convinced that notation is hard to learn. It isn't.

That reminds me of my brother, who speaks five languages fluently, gets by in several others and has taught Russian in college. He tells me that Serbo-Croatian is easy to learn. I work with a lot of technologists who tell me that Visual Basic is easy to learn. Anything seems easy if you have the training and the knack for it and you have used it every day for years.

But why do so many people who try to learn notation give up and go back to tab? Because tab is more user friendly. You almost don't have to learn it. It is a visual picture of what you need to play. Most people look at it and get it right away. It is intuitive, like a website. Can you imagine how user-unfriendly this site would be if you needed to know the programming language that makes it run? You may think that is apples and oranges, but I know for a fact that a lot of beginners feel that way about notation. And it is not just because of some prevailing myth that it is hard to learn. It is real.

I agree that notation may be "easy to learn," for some, but it is not intuitive. If it were, no learning, or only minimal learning, would be necessary. As has been said, some people don't have an ambition to be professional or classical musicians. They just want to play. Tab facilitates that. It's popularity proves that. It is NOT an indication that people are ignorant or lazy. It is just an indication that not everyone in music has the same goals.

[JeffD]

As has been said, some people don't have an ambition to be professional or classical musicians. They just want to play. Tab facilitates that. It's popularity proves that. It is NOT an indication that people are ignorant or lazy. It is just an indication that not everyone in music has the same goals.

We are in 100% agreement on that.

[JimD]

As has been said, some people don't have an ambition to be professional or classical musicians. They just want to play. Tab facilitates that. It's popularity proves that. It is NOT an indication that people are ignorant or lazy. It is just an indication that not everyone in music has the same goals.

We are in 100% agreement on that.

and no one has said otherwise.

[gnelson651]

Personally I prefer standard notation and my past experiences with tab has been less than favorable. I can see relationships in notation that tab can never offer me. For me (NOTE: PERSONAL SUBJECTIVE OPINION NOT TO CREATE FLAMES) standard notation is superior to tab. No amount of convoluted logic comparing apples to oranges will change my OPINION.

That being said, I will use whatever will help me reach my goal to learn a piece of music. I play because it gives me joy and hopefully for others as well.

Now I think I'll go back practicing and try to learn "Jerusalem Ridge" using both notation and tab to reach my objective.

[Tim]

Just my perspective but...

1) the goal is to get pleasing tones to come out of the instrument
2) different people learn different ways
3) standard notation, tab, ear or having someone slowly demonstrate the fingering are all ways that could be best for an individual

I had owned a mandolin for about a month when I was unable to find tab for two songs I wanted to play ("Shenandoah" and "Scotland the Brave"). #I bought a book on how to read music and worked at it. #At first I would read the sheet music and make notations of my own (for a while tab, for a while the note names, etc). #After a while those mental links were made. #I can't just pick up sheet music and immediately play at speed but I suspect most people learning by those other methods have a bit of a curve to get up to speed.

While some methods have advantages for situations, the origin post was correct that neither is best for everyone.

[Mark Robertson-Tessi]

It doesn't matter how precise the notation is, if it is being interpreted incorrectly it will be played wrong.

The expert who is writing the notation will tend to put finger and string numbers in where he thinks they are needed. The less experienced player will tend to be LOST and unable to find his way out.

If the player will get "LOST and unable to find his way out," then I humbly suggest that they are not ready for that piece of music. There's no one right way to play music. Any number of approaches can work. If the composer seeks something specific, then it will be included in the notation. If not, the player needs to find what is best for themselves.

I will agree that TAB has its uses when used with beginners for allowing fast tune learning. But mostly it is limiting, not just because of the detachment from the music, but also because it suggests exactly one way to play something.

Finally, a mandolin book is most certainly not defined by the presence of tab, but rather whether the material fits within the boundaries imposed by the instrument. If you start seeing 10 note chords, then we don't have a mandolin book anymore. Give me just about any instrument and there will be something you can do on mando that can't be done on that other instrument, and vice-versa.

Cheers
MRT