8 ms·

Maybe it's easier to learn, but it's definitely not simpler. There's a difference [1]. Probably because I'm used to reading the tradional notation, I had a har

by bbx 14y ago

Maybe it's easier to learn, but it's definitely not simpler. There's a difference [1]. Probably because I'm used to reading the tradional notation, I had a hard time deciphering theirs. There's a reason why, after centuries, the standard notation is still relevant. You basically need 3 elements to play an instrument: height (pitch), length (rhythm) and power (dynamics). And I can't imagine a better way to translate these informations than a traditional score. But I appreciate any attempt to revisit musical notation, like the one that spawned the guitar tablatures, which is incredibly simple and easy to learn. I'm concerned by Hummingbird's readability. Though each symbol carries multiple (and sometimes redundant) informations, I feel like there's a lot of noise. Also, drawing these symbols requires some high precision and I fear that handwritten versions will render some confusion, especially the small rest and rhythm symbols. I often scribble some music lines on a piece of paper, and I rarely have issues re-reading myself. On a side-note, using English-based mnemonic hints ("Empty" for E, "Full" for F...) will hinder its portability across other countries, especially Latin ones where Do-Ré-Mi-Fa is more widely adopted. [1] http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2011/11/11/simple-versus-easy/ http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2011/11/11/simple-versus-easy/

jff 14y ago
Guitar tabs are simple and easy to learn, IF you're playing a song you already know. Most tabs I've seen just tell you which fingers to press down and which strings to hit, often excluding time signature, note duration, note intensity, rests, and other sightreading essentials.
- bbx 14y ago
  You're absolutely right. Tabs are most useful when you already know the song. As you say, most tabs don't include much information besides pitch and order, but can include guitar-specific ones, such as bends or slides. It's possible though to write good tabs, such as the ones available in Guitar Pro (http://www.guitaring.info/uploads/software/Guitar%20Pro/Guitar%20Pro_1.jpg http://www.guitaring.info/uploads/software/Guitar%20Pro/Guit...). Tabs' major appeal is that there's no learning curve: what you read is almost a physical representation of what you play. And it only requires a text editor to write, and can easily be published and shared on a website.
  - whyaduck 14y ago
    The best tabs are printed under a staff that contains the missing rhythm information (along with the actual pitches, etc., of course). Not exactly concise, but very info-rich.
- adrianh 14y ago
  This is exactly the problem we're solving with Soundslice: http://www.soundslice.com/ http://www.soundslice.com/ It syncs tabs with real audio recordings so that you get the usability of tab plus the rhythm and phrasing cues from the real recording.
- microtherion 14y ago
  This is technically true, but is approaching notation from a perspective that everything needs to be specified (I’d call this a “classical” perspective, but even in classical music, this was not traditionally true). In e.g. Jazz jam sessions, good sight readers can definitely figure out what to play from lead sheets consisting of chord symbols + melody, and in terms of information, those are equivalent to guitar tabs + melody. Admittedly, there are also books only giving tabs/chord symbols + lyrics (or sometimes not even those), and for this form, I agree that your assessment is valid.
  - jff 14y ago
    There's also a certain difference between jamming with a few other players, and getting a whole concert band of 40+ players to sound good together.
    - microtherion 14y ago
      My understanding is that in the big band era, you got fairly large bands (though not as large as 40 members) to play tightly together without undue precision in notation (and often without all members being good readers of sheet music).
- kahawe 14y ago
  The difference is, typical guitar beginners want to play certain riffs they already know or are listening to while looking at the tabs or they can easily write down ideas in tabs. Very often you get the traditional notation above the tabs, then you have all you need. Most guitar training nowadays is very non-classical, the summit of that modern learning route is being able to improvise freely. You are actively being trained to LISTEN and pick it up that way, you pick up chord changes, rhythm and melody, even the key, just by listening and then repeat them or improvise over what is there. You end up applying quite a lot of theory but most guitar players don't study 100% dry theory but are taught to use certain patterns or to use their instrument to find out certain correlations others are learning by heart. It is more about expression. In contrast, the highest point you can reach in typical classical training is being able to perfectly sight-read and reproduce the music exactly as it is on the sheet, hence the very clear and detailed instructions. The focus lies on re-production and precision. A Jazz guitarist's lead sheet can be as short as half a page and he could still play for hours. Both ways have their merits and disadvantages, this notation actually helps neither. It is still way too complicated for the average tab user - while the proficient classical player is missing vital information. On top of that I find it EXTREMELY hard to read, the difference between the circle being filled on the side or on top is practically indistinguishable when you are a little further back, so are the tiny little lines sticking out of circles pointing up or down.
coldtea 14y ago
>Maybe it's easier to learn, but it's definitely not simpler. Probably because I'm used to reading the tradional notation, I had a hard time deciphering theirs. If you just found out about this from HN, then you didn't have ANY time to get familiar with it. Plus, your knowledge of traditional notation put you already at a disadvantage. You could only compare it with a control group study, or after you have spend as much time in this, as it took you to be proficient in standard notation (e.g 1-2 months at least).
Steko 14y ago
"You basically need 3 elements to play an instrument: height (pitch), length (rhythm) and power (dynamics). And I can't imagine a better way to translate these informations than a traditional score." (1) Hummingbird translates length in a trivially superior way to standard notation. No contest imho. (2) I would say it does a somewhat better job on pitch as well. Both have huge shortcomings so I can well imagine far better systems. Dynamics is a push so I'll say Hummingbird is an improvement in translation. I don't think it's a big enough improvement to climb the mountain of inertial standard notation has in it's favor. I'm typing this on Qwerty keyboard too, yep.
- TylerE 14y ago
  Hummingbird is fatally flawed for anything beyond beginner level stuff. It's not going to deal well with any sort of complicated rhythm. I'd love to see you accurately notate something at all complex, like say this, a snippet from a Beethoven piano sonata: http://www.conknet.com/~proscore/samples/lgcplxpiano.gif http://www.conknet.com/~proscore/samples/lgcplxpiano.gif While it might have some minimal value for beginners, you might as well teach them real notation. Let me present a metaphore. You're in charge of the foreign language curricula in, say, Japan. You can offer either Esperanto or English but not both. Esperanto is easier to learn, but English is infinitely more useful.
  - PeterisP 14y ago
    The example picture you provide is a great example of how horribly, horribly flawed the current notation is for annotating rhythm. I mean, many people have gotten used to that language, but there obviously can be a far simpler way to represent the same timing information than the first line of that pic. And the example you give is not THAT complex - try to represent any interesting polyrhythm drum pattern in traditional notation, now that will be an excercise in futility. The hummingbird is not a good enough solution - it's a step in the right direction and another step sideways; but we need to go much further to improve both ease of reading and ease of learning music. To use a programming analogy, the current music notation is like if everybody had to learn programming through COBOL - it works, it's usable and widely used... but still, using a better, cleaner language for the same concepts would obviously bring benefits to all new users; even if it's of no benefit to all the current experts who already know the current notation by heart.

by bbx 14y ago

jff 14y ago

Guitar tabs are simple and easy to learn, IF you're playing a song you already know. Most tabs I've seen just tell you which fingers to press down and which strings to hit, often excluding time signature, note duration, note intensity, rests, and other sightreading essentials.

bbx 14y ago
You're absolutely right. Tabs are most useful when you already know the song. As you say, most tabs don't include much information besides pitch and order, but can include guitar-specific ones, such as bends or slides. It's possible though to write good tabs, such as the ones available in Guitar Pro (http://www.guitaring.info/uploads/software/Guitar%20Pro/Guitar%20Pro_1.jpg http://www.guitaring.info/uploads/software/Guitar%20Pro/Guit...). Tabs' major appeal is that there's no learning curve: what you read is almost a physical representation of what you play. And it only requires a text editor to write, and can easily be published and shared on a website.
- whyaduck 14y ago
  The best tabs are printed under a staff that contains the missing rhythm information (along with the actual pitches, etc., of course). Not exactly concise, but very info-rich.
adrianh 14y ago
This is exactly the problem we're solving with Soundslice: http://www.soundslice.com/ http://www.soundslice.com/ It syncs tabs with real audio recordings so that you get the usability of tab plus the rhythm and phrasing cues from the real recording.
microtherion 14y ago
This is technically true, but is approaching notation from a perspective that everything needs to be specified (I’d call this a “classical” perspective, but even in classical music, this was not traditionally true). In e.g. Jazz jam sessions, good sight readers can definitely figure out what to play from lead sheets consisting of chord symbols + melody, and in terms of information, those are equivalent to guitar tabs + melody. Admittedly, there are also books only giving tabs/chord symbols + lyrics (or sometimes not even those), and for this form, I agree that your assessment is valid.
- jff 14y ago
  There's also a certain difference between jamming with a few other players, and getting a whole concert band of 40+ players to sound good together.
  - microtherion 14y ago
    My understanding is that in the big band era, you got fairly large bands (though not as large as 40 members) to play tightly together without undue precision in notation (and often without all members being good readers of sheet music).
kahawe 14y ago
The difference is, typical guitar beginners want to play certain riffs they already know or are listening to while looking at the tabs or they can easily write down ideas in tabs. Very often you get the traditional notation above the tabs, then you have all you need. Most guitar training nowadays is very non-classical, the summit of that modern learning route is being able to improvise freely. You are actively being trained to LISTEN and pick it up that way, you pick up chord changes, rhythm and melody, even the key, just by listening and then repeat them or improvise over what is there. You end up applying quite a lot of theory but most guitar players don't study 100% dry theory but are taught to use certain patterns or to use their instrument to find out certain correlations others are learning by heart. It is more about expression. In contrast, the highest point you can reach in typical classical training is being able to perfectly sight-read and reproduce the music exactly as it is on the sheet, hence the very clear and detailed instructions. The focus lies on re-production and precision. A Jazz guitarist's lead sheet can be as short as half a page and he could still play for hours. Both ways have their merits and disadvantages, this notation actually helps neither. It is still way too complicated for the average tab user - while the proficient classical player is missing vital information. On top of that I find it EXTREMELY hard to read, the difference between the circle being filled on the side or on top is practically indistinguishable when you are a little further back, so are the tiny little lines sticking out of circles pointing up or down.

coldtea 14y ago

>Maybe it's easier to learn, but it's definitely not simpler. Probably because I'm used to reading the tradional notation, I had a hard time deciphering theirs. If you just found out about this from HN, then you didn't have ANY time to get familiar with it. Plus, your knowledge of traditional notation put you already at a disadvantage. You could only compare it with a control group study, or after you have spend as much time in this, as it took you to be proficient in standard notation (e.g 1-2 months at least).

Steko 14y ago

"You basically need 3 elements to play an instrument: height (pitch), length (rhythm) and power (dynamics). And I can't imagine a better way to translate these informations than a traditional score." (1) Hummingbird translates length in a trivially superior way to standard notation. No contest imho. (2) I would say it does a somewhat better job on pitch as well. Both have huge shortcomings so I can well imagine far better systems. Dynamics is a push so I'll say Hummingbird is an improvement in translation. I don't think it's a big enough improvement to climb the mountain of inertial standard notation has in it's favor. I'm typing this on Qwerty keyboard too, yep.

TylerE 14y ago
Hummingbird is fatally flawed for anything beyond beginner level stuff. It's not going to deal well with any sort of complicated rhythm. I'd love to see you accurately notate something at all complex, like say this, a snippet from a Beethoven piano sonata: http://www.conknet.com/~proscore/samples/lgcplxpiano.gif http://www.conknet.com/~proscore/samples/lgcplxpiano.gif While it might have some minimal value for beginners, you might as well teach them real notation. Let me present a metaphore. You're in charge of the foreign language curricula in, say, Japan. You can offer either Esperanto or English but not both. Esperanto is easier to learn, but English is infinitely more useful.
- PeterisP 14y ago
  The example picture you provide is a great example of how horribly, horribly flawed the current notation is for annotating rhythm. I mean, many people have gotten used to that language, but there obviously can be a far simpler way to represent the same timing information than the first line of that pic. And the example you give is not THAT complex - try to represent any interesting polyrhythm drum pattern in traditional notation, now that will be an excercise in futility. The hummingbird is not a good enough solution - it's a step in the right direction and another step sideways; but we need to go much further to improve both ease of reading and ease of learning music. To use a programming analogy, the current music notation is like if everybody had to learn programming through COBOL - it works, it's usable and widely used... but still, using a better, cleaner language for the same concepts would obviously bring benefits to all new users; even if it's of no benefit to all the current experts who already know the current notation by heart.