The Steel Guitar Forum

I think you're overreacting, James, and reading things between the lines that aren't there. For example, 95% of what I play is improvised and learned by ear, yet you think we have "differences in our fundamental perception of music". I'm just advocating for reading music when it's appropriate or necessary to do so.

Earnest Bovine wrote:
Sometimes it can be very useful to write down that kind of music. That Metallica song Puppet Master that James referred to is a good example. The content is very simple but it would be easy to get lost because it is so repetitive. Having a written road map helps you to know where you are when all the landmarks look (sound) the same.

This is actually really funny. I'm not annoyed by this, just amused. You guys are telling me that I'm ignorant for admitting that I don't know Perlman's works. Metallica is a GIANT in the rock world.

Ernest, It's "Master Of Puppets" and if you listen to the album and not just the song (which you haven't), you will notice that it's not that repetitive. It has more movements and more complex changes than many classical pieces. Metallica's choice of textures does not make them simple-minded.

I agree with Ernest that it would be easier to learn "Master of Puppets" from written music than to memorize it. The guitar solo should, of course, be improvised (if Metallica fans wouldn't object).

b0b wrote:I think you're overreacting, James, and reading things between the lines that aren't there. For example, 95% of what I play is improvised and learned by ear, yet you think we have "differences in our fundamental perception of music". I'm just advocating for reading music when it's appropriate or necessary to do so.

You know, I've found myself frustrated with this argument because I KNOW that most of the respondents, like yourself, have very much in common with myself in the way we learn and play music.

That there is a disproportionate respect afforded to the "learned" musicians throws the objectivity of the debate out of the window.

I wonder if revered musicians also feel a sense of entitlement? Can I go and get a music degree and look down on people? When I fail to get a gig, I think about what I need to improve upon. I can get down on myself. When the nobleman loses a gig, I'd bet the fault lays with the flaws in society.

Wow that is really cool Mike, I have not kept up with sheet music reading at all. I could not do it any longer if I was asked to try today. It would take me months and hours to re learn. But I can take a piece of recorded music like you posted and break it down and disect it beat by beat and note for note. I heard what you recorded and knew that it was in 4/4 time. I could hear that the droaning hammerons were 16th notes. I could hear all the triplets in another section. I could follow all the subdivisions in the percussion and tell you exactly where each beat was in the measure down to the little chime bells ringing. And I could tell you where all the notes started and ended and what count they were on in each measure...But I be damned if I could write it out for someone else to play again in musical notation..And it would take me weeks and hours of reputation to play it again myself if I had too...Youre right Mike I would be a way better musican if I could read music...So what is stopping me? I dont know

Your complaint is about ethnocentricism, not really racism. The classical world swooned over Leontyne Price and Roberson, as long as they sang in the European operatic tradition.

As for written versus by-ear, let's consider a middle ground, the chord chart. For those two pieces you want to learn, and for the one b0b mentioned, I would start by learning the repeated progression by ear and writing down the chords. That's all the rest of the band needs.

Of course someone has to learn to play or sing the melody. Those are all short and repetitive enough that it is probably easier to learn the melody by ear. Already having the chord chart written out helps as a roadmap for that, and allows you to learn the melody in segments. Writing out the words also helps. But, of course, if you don't know Spanish, that flamenco stuff is gonna be a bitch.

Unless your band is made up of classical musicians, the instrumentalists and singer(s) aren't going to be able to read the music, even if you notate the melody. So what's the point of writing it out in your situation. Of course, if you want to come back to it years later, it would be nice to have it written out. But then, you'd have to be able to read music for that to be useful.

So, if you don't have the written music and can't get it, and your group doesn't read anyway, yeah, doing it all by ear is all you can do.

On the other hand, if the music was available, or there was a skilled reader to notate it, and everybody in the group could read it, then the transcriber could spend the several hours (days in my case) it would take to write it out (or you could buy it). But when it was then placed in front of the rest of the group, they could read it straight away. So it would take some serious time for one person, the notater; but everyone else would be able to read it right away, without taking hours or days to learn it by ear. And what's more, any reader, at any future time, or anyplace on earth, could then read it straight out, without duplicating the many hours it takes to learn it by ear. It's a great system. It's worked for centuries.

Wow, didn't know this was out there:

HERE

HERE is a another one.

James Mayer wrote:
This is actually really funny. I'm not annoyed by this, just amused. You guys are telling me that I'm ignorant for admitting that I don't know Perlman's works. Metallica is a GIANT in the rock world.

.

You don't have to play like Perlman to be a giant in the rock world. You can play Metallica and be a giant there.

Bill, you are so bad.

David Doggett wrote:
Bill, you are so bad.

And selectively ignorant!

Nah...he's not that ignorant. He's just rattling your cage. Don't let him get to you.

I spent a couple of hours last night writing out some exercises for myself, and it had occurred to me that up till now, this thread had been concerned with only the descriptive aspects of written music - reading what's already there; and not the prescriptive aspects - writing something new. I see it has now taken that turn, beneficially.

The reason I was writing steel guitar exercises was because I just spent 14 months working on Martin Taylor's method of playing two and three voices simultaneously on six-string, and I have a little momentum built up that I want to convert to steel playing. With two voices, it's obvious that on C6th you "can" (one can) play any diatonic or chromatic bass line on the low strings mixed with any other diatonic or chromatic melody line, with the limits proscribed by the distance in pitches on the lowest and highest string and the length of the bar. And, umm, talent and persistence. It may take pedals, it may take slants, you can't write tab because you don't know till you get there to the notes. The exercises are just arbitrary, even near-random with the goal to developing the improv-in-two-voice technique; sheet music paper is the only tool I can forseeably use, though. Say your bass line is quarter notes, ascending and descending:

1-2-3-2-1-3, then 2-3-4-3-2-4, then 3-4-5-4-3-5, then 4-5-6-5-4-6 (6/8 time).

Then over that, you want to play five ascending scale tones with a descending chord tone, then start over on the next scale tone up:

1-2-3-4-5-3, then 2-3-4-5-6-4, then 3-4-5-6-7-5, then 4-5-6-7-8-6, etc.

On a steel guitar, can you already combine those two lines OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD? God almighty.... I play with a piano player to whom you could explain those two melody-generation schemes, and she could play either one on top in 3rds, syncopated with either one in 19/8 time and whistling "Dixie" while cooking lunch, probably (conservatory-trained, BTW). I got it going on six-string (that's the easy one), but again, I just spent over a year DOING just that. They get a whole lot harder fast - #2 inverts the bass line...

The only way I can do that on steel is with the "tyranny of the written page" telling me how, one beat, one bar at a time. Now, there may well be a technological hookup whereby you would sing/whistle a bass part, drop it a few octaves, record it to on track, whistle a melody, record it to another track - then what have you got? An audio track that you have to start/stop manually (footswitch?) while trying to match two notes at a time? Or then print it out? Frick.... Some of these notes sound kinda wrong, and needed to be changed - I can do that with an eraser, without having to crawl over my steel to get at a computer - I don't even need to turn the computer on (makes me waste a lotta time... )

Obviously, once I spend a few hours a day doing this for a few years, it will come easier. But you have to start somewhere, and at every level of the game, those staff bars just keep showing up. Pat Metheny and John McLaughlin have both been in the forefront of synthesizer & recording technology, using Synclaviers and MIDI for composing and the whole nine yards - but they still use the staff to teach. It just plain IS - it's co-evolved in such a way as to be structurally-united with the Western world. Why even use the English language?

The Civil War has already been fought, truth & beauty were there all along, I suppose my sarcasm comes as a response to your seeming-need to lecture/educate/explain/teach/preach/harangue people who have been playing music professionally longer than you've been alive - so suggest a new system that's out there, write a new notation system, most (some? A few... OK, two) people here are thrilled to use every improvement available - we're already sitting in front of computers, listening to YouTube & writing Band-in-the-Box tracks. So WHAT is next? Specifically, what do I buy?

(damn, another reason to keep the computer off)

David Doggett wrote:Your complaint is about ethnocentricism, not really racism. The classical world swooned over Leontyne Price and Roberson, as long as they sang in the European operatic tradition.

As for written versus by-ear, let's consider a middle ground, the chord chart. For those two pieces you want to learn, and for the one b0b mentioned, I would start by learning the repeated progression by ear and writing down the chords. That's all the rest of the band needs.

Of course someone has to learn to play or sing the melody. Those are all short and repetitive enough that it is probably easier to learn the melody by ear. Already having the chord chart written out helps as a roadmap for that, and allows you to learn the melody in segments. Writing out the words also helps. But, of course, if you don't know Spanish, that flamenco stuff is gonna be a bitch.

Unless your band is made up of classical musicians, the instrumentalists and singer(s) aren't going to be able to read the music, even if you notate the melody. So what's the point of writing it out in your situation. Of course, if you want to come back to it years later, it would be nice to have it written out. But then, you'd have to be able to read music for that to be useful.

So, if you don't have the written music and can't get it, and your group doesn't read anyway, yeah, doing it all by ear is all you can do.

On the other hand, if the music was available, or there was a skilled reader to notate it, and everybody in the group could read it, then the transcriber could spend the several hours (days in my case) it would take to write it out (or you could buy it). But when it was then placed in front of the rest of the group, they could read it straight away. So it would take some serious time for one person, the notater; but everyone else would be able to read it right away, without taking hours or days to learn it by ear. And what's more, any reader, at any future time, or anyplace on earth, could then read it straight out, without duplicating the many hours it takes to learn it by ear. It's a great system. It's worked for centuries.

David(Doggett), you always submit thoughtful, intelligent posts and present evidence instead of sarcastic opinions.

The chord chart has always made more sense to me. I don't want note-for-note repetition but I think the framework of the song has to be managed and organized.

"It's worked for centuries" is not a good point, however. The same argument can be made for a courier on horseback. I'm talking about the telephone or even the video conference. Much of the meaning of a conversation can be lost or misunderstood if not heard accurately. I know, that doesn't mean we shouldn't learn to read or write but I'm still not convinced the music is captured on paper.

Bob explained the ability of notation to capture microtones and extremely complex ragas, but since I haven't seen these methods employed in the very place they should be employed, they must be considered too cumbersome to use. "Too cumbersome" is the point when a new language is created in Computer Science to better handle certain situations. Learning about something that is ignored when it should be used is more frustrating than enlightening.

I also remain unconvinced that the notes themselves are all that matter. I don't think Hendrix's notes are all that remarkable, for example. His style, charisma and other intangibles are where the power lies. If the world loses recordings of Hendrix, it loses Hendrix. You can't recreate that with surviving manuscripts. "A picture says a thousand words" is often saying "a picture says more than can be said". The same goes with recorded music.

There is no reason notation can't be used along with recordings. Many publishers include CDs, so someone out there agrees with me. This is the method that I choose to learn a piece, with recordings and notation (if it's available) as a reference manual and nothing more.

It would save time in the above situations that you describe....if it weren't for our current methods. Our singer/bassist can read and write. He's a pianist more than anything else. However, he never brings up notation when he knows that two more of us can, at least, read simple lines. No one has said they won't use it. Our songs evolve constantly and I don't see how we can keep track of that better than recording at various stages. We leave several portable recording devices running during practice and when a song evolves to a place were we feel it has peaked, we go into the studio. Sometimes, it takes days and sometimes it takes months. We review our practices and highlight sections that we want to keep. It's a very natural and organic way to make music. I can't think of a method that is more fun and productive than that. It doesn't fit everyone's personality, but I'm hopeful that I will always be lucky enough to find musicians that can be so effortlessly organized. The key is that no one is inflexible. Everyone can react to changes in the dynamic in their own way. The most we've ever tried this with is eight people, and I'm sure it wouldn't work so well with fifty. Chord charts would work and we have used a whiteboard with similar charting on many occasions. I don't see notation as being effective in this scenario.

The snobs in this thread will relegate our music to simplistic nonsense that is not worthy of listening. That's what makes our method possible, right?

David Mason, I would suggest using notation as a tool as you described.

A digital sampler would be a smart investment to practice that bit that is troubling you. A decent one will provide several footswitchable features and long recording times. The ability to change tempo is a must. They aren't cheap, but I bet 95% of the musicians discussed in this thread would have killed for one, in their day.

EDIT: I'd also look into Ableton Live, which has far more features than most stand-alone sampling units.

I do wish I was the talent that could come along and write the next language. I'm not that genius, however.

Your complaint is about ethnocentricism, not really racism. The classical world swooned over Leontyne Price and Roberson, as long as they sang in the European operatic tradition.

I agree. To me, classical snobbery is a form of ethnocentricism. But they aren't alone - ethnocentricism is part of human nature, IMHO.

Bob explained the ability of notation to capture microtones and extremely complex ragas, but since I haven't seen these methods employed in the very place they should be employed, they must be considered too cumbersome to use. "Too cumbersome" is the point when a new language is created in Computer Science to better handle certain situations.

Speaking from personal experience, I think you'll find the vast majority of musicians much more wedded to "this is the way we've done it for decades and centuries, I've spent years learning to do it this way, it works for me, and this is the way I'm gonna do it." than any serious computer scientist alive. Totally different fields of practice with fundamentally different goals. Computer science is about how to use languages and algorithms to deal with the complexity. In music, languages and algorithms are secondary, and purely a tool to put musical ideas across. There are music scholars out there trying other approaches - there are some sophisticated mathematically-oriented ways to describe music, but they are pretty obscure and (IMO) unlikely to ever gain widespread acceptance. There's nothing stopping any of us from using any personal notational tool we want to develop. I use numeric methods to describe melodies sometimes - it's fast and easy for me.

I also remained unconvinced that the notes themselves are all that matter. I don't think Hendrix's notes are all that remarkable, for example. His style, charisma and other intangibles are where the power lies. If the world loses recordings of Hendrix, it loses Hendrix. You can't recreate that with surviving manuscripts. "A picture says a thousand words" is often saying "a picture says more than can be said". The same goes with recorded music.

I basically agree. In spite of all the focus on written music in western civilization, I think a significant part of the inter-generational transmission of any culture's music is aural. How does one really know what Caruso sounded like without hearing him sing? Of course, Caruso's recordings are primitive, but the miracle of modern digital signal processing can help that somewhat.

The greater issue, to me anyway, is that music must be stored externally (outside the brain) in a way that one can have essentially instant random access to its content while learning it. The problem with pure ear learning is that most human brains can't instantly get around a long and complex piece without such external storage and random access. This was the revolution of the written word and written music. But I think that, in time, it will be possible to instrument such external storage with good random access using some type of easily used user interface, which I think would be best with both audio and written (via video) components. I think it would make a good project for a computer/information scientist (I teach info science).

I honestly doubt even that would replace a written score for complex large-ensemble performances. The advantage of written hardcopy is that it can be carried around and uses a different sense organ (the eyes) than the performance medium sense organ (the ears). But such a method would be great for learning music.

Dave Mudgett wrote:

Your complaint is about ethnocentricism, not really racism. The classical world swooned over Leontyne Price and Roberson, as long as they sang in the European operatic tradition.

I agree. To me, classical snobbery is a form of ethnocentricism. But they aren't alone - ethnocentricism is part of human nature, IMHO.

I meant to address this and I forgot. I did use the incorrect term. I'll be more careful next time.

While ethnocentrism is part of human nature, I don't find that is a good excuse for promoting it. Racism could use the same argument to it's advantage.

I think the next language has to be instantly more usable for a novice than the current system. That's been the key to adopting new technology and I don't see why it needs to be any different with music. I'm thinking software, of course. The obscure musical languages that you mention probably didn't have a strong user interface. Can you, perhaps, provide some more information on them so that I can do a little research?

The software would also have to be overcome the fact that software itself becomes obsolete faster than anything on earth. It would have to be based on a storage standard that is currently accepted and will be easily transferable to the next evolution. XML would probably work just fine.

If someone were to write a superior system, there would have to be a major marketing breakthrough in order for it to gain acceptance. You need an endorsee that is both a GIANT and not insecure about how much of his classical notation training might be rendered obsolete. That last step might be the most difficult. I think there is a sense of job security in the fact that the current methods are not easily learned by adults, no matter how ambitious they might be. Those methods are also only taught to privileged children which eliminates over 6 billion of the overall talent pool. The internet is far easier to deploy and far cheaper than a respected music mentor.

James,
By equating the skills you do have with all that is musical and creative and equating the skills you don't have with being non musical, contrived and unfeeling you show some interesting things about yourself.

Bob Hoffnar wrote:James,
By equating the skills you do have with all that is musical and creative and equating the skills you don't have with being non musical, contrived and unfeeling you show some interesting things about yourself.

There are two ways to look at that. The other way is that I try everything and choose to go further down the most musical or useful paths.

I would love to be able to speak every language fluently and play every instrument proficiently. There is only so much time in one's life.

I already mentioned that I don't think the piano is the best instrument for me because of it's hard limitations. I would think that readers of a steel guitar forum would understand that quite well. The piano is very musical and powerful, but only considered versatile within certain musical boundaries. It's greatest weaknesses are a result of it's greatest strengths. Do I need to become a virtuoso pianist before I can validate those opinions?

I don't play piano very much because I'm not real fond of the sound. If I liked the sound, I would be inspired to play more and become a decent pianist.

I seriously doubt that any of us will ever come close to reaching the "hard limitations" of the piano or any other chromatic instrument.

b0b wrote:I don't play piano very much because I'm not real fond of the sound. If I liked the sound, I would be inspired to play more and become a decent pianist.

I seriously doubt that any of us will ever come close to reaching the "hard limitations" of the piano or any other chromatic instrument.

I'm surprised by this post. Are we talking about the same thing?

I look at a piano as being able to plot points on a graph, but unable to connect them. If I want to play a very simple vocal emulation, I can't do it on the piano no matter what level of proficiency I reach.

If I want to comp jazz progressions using extended chords, I can't do it well on the violin. It should take a complete beginner about one minute to realize that fact.

I witnessed an Indian keyboard player trying to overcome the limitations by using a pitch wheel. While it defeats one strength of the piano in that he had to commit his left hand to perform that way, he did pull it off. It honestly sounded so cheezy that I wouldn't even consider the wheel to be a considerable compromise.

Well James, I'm sorry to differ with you, but I agree 100% with Erv. The steel guitar is a musical instrument, and as such makes reading sheet music the "legitimate" alternative to the other methods used by many steel players.

I don't mean to infer that you should ever use it on the bandstand, that's a big faux pax no matter what your ax, but any musician should have the ability to pick up a chart and play it. Yes, even steel players!

Yep, you can use TAB -----as a crutch--- but that only gives you some other person's interpretation of a song----kind of like painting by the numbers.
I'll admit that having a good ear is absolutely essential to being a good steel player (or musician of any sort), but it doesn't let you pick out a tune from a fake book, learn it, then play it knowing the changes and melody are correct.

I've been there done that trusting only to my ear----6 nites a week for many years, playing both steel and bass in everything from country to swing and jazz, but also taught myself to read, and it opened up many additional opportunities.
Terry

James Mayer wrote:

David Doggett wrote:
Bill, you are so bad.

And selectively ignorant!

but I can read music AND play by ear also...surely I cannot be considered ignorant.

When I was a little kid I had an inflatable Bozo the Clown punching bag with a weighted round bottom and every time you hit it it would just keep bouncing back back up - finally Robbie the Welsh Terrier bit it and it popped and died forever.

I loved that dog.

I had an inflatable Bozo the Clown punching bag with a weighted round bottom and every time you hit it it would just keep bouncing back back up -

Touche', David!

So, does anyone else have this problem? My reading comprehension completely drops off while reading out loud. I'm talking about the english language, not music. After reading out loud, I have to go back and read it again to myself or I haven't gained anything.

Is it possible that you readers don't have this problem?

Because I find this to be an interesting topic and a common battle line amongst musicians, I looked elsewhere.

HERE is a thread over at Harmony-Central that pretty much mirrors this thread, but has some insights and alternative viewpoints that we haven't discussed. The respondents include Berklee grads, session musicians, jazz musicians and many "other" professionals. The range of primary instruments is also varied more than it is on this forum. It's gets pretty interesting by page 2.

While it doesn't exactly support my viewpoint, it does make our conversation seem scripted to a certain degree. Which leads to the question of how much of this conversation have I (or you) arrived at by means of independent thought.