Transcibe rhythm notation

[benzem]

A recent thread concerning "Eruption" has prompted a question for you's that use it.

 

I checked out the tab. Like was stated by one poster the rhythms are impossible to read., if even accurate at all. I learned to read as a kid and the way the phrases were noted was a nightmare. Just not how it's done.

 

For instance, no use of staccato only crazy divisions with rests. Headache stuff, for those that can read rhythms.

 

I don't own the program. Is this common?

[mcmurray]

Post the notation here please. It's not obvious what the issue is without seeing it.

[benzem]

 

Post the notation here please. It's not obvious what the issue is without seeing it.

 

 

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?5ageu25mlm553i6

 

LISTEN UP! This is in NO WAY!!!!!!!! a dig on Cary's work. Got it? I'm not about that bs.

 

My concerns are with the program. And, IDK if it's what he used. Just that it's not useful, AWA incredibly inaccurate AND confusing, for those who read music.

 

Does it allow for a more accurate rhythmic notation, if desired?

[c+t in b]

Cary doesn't know how to read or write in music notation. He said he learned how to read while tabbing Eruption out and then when he was done, immediately forgot how to read (which is something that doesn't happen when you learn a basic skill)

 

He mentioned that his reasoning for the inadequacies of the other transcriptions of eruption came about because he plugged in those tabs via midi, and they weren't correct on playback. He didn't actually read the rhythms or pitches to arrive at that conclusion. He only read the tabbed notes and cared more about the tab being on the same exact string and fret that EVH played on, live in concert.

 

I'm not really entirely sure what his process was but I wouldn't blame the program in this instance. It is obviously a severe user error and total misconception of standard notation. The way it was notated is similar to playing midi keys in garage band and having it transcribe the notes for you. Garage Band would actually follow the rules of the imaginary bar-line though, so it's slightly better. Cary's version is impossible to read.

 

Since he deleted his posts here, you can still find him discussing it all over the internet if you google Cary Chilton Eruption. He spammed numerous message boards with his tab and posted under aliases to confirm that it was dead-on accurate.

 

edit: just googled it. He used guitar pro

[JonR]

Humans can notate music. Computers can't.

Guitar pro - like any automatic notation-from-tab software - is way too literal. : it may be accurate (according to certain non-essential criteria), but that doesn't mean clear.

 

If you fed that notation back into a midi sequencer it might well sound correct. But notation is for humans to read (and interpret), and needs editing and formatting by literate humans to make it legible; which is down to economy of symbol usage (eg, use of staccato 8ths instead of 16ths plus 16th rests - it takes a human to realise the former is better); as well as accurate placement within barlines, and proper beaming of notes.

[jonfinn]

Guitar Pro is OK for guitar notation. I've used it a little bit and overall, it's fairly user-friendly. But if you're looking for it to create results that look professional (i.e. readable to the extent that the reader doesn't get a headache trying to decipher), it's not the best program for that. Finale (IMO) is.

 

Finale is the epitome of what I call "user hostile". It may as well open with the message "WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANT?". Very hard to learn. Many notations take multiple keystrokes.

 

But, it's the only program I've seen that really gives beautiful results. I've been a hardcore Finale user since 1997 and I have yet to find anything it won't do. Orchestral scores, lead sheets, guitar with tab, Music without time signatures, compound key signatures. If you can put it on the page, you can also edit any paramater associated with it.

 

The fact of the matter is, I can still hand-write music much faster than I can enter it in to Finale. But the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. Once a piece is entered, I can do a lot of things with it later without having to re-notate everything.

[JonR]

I use Sibelius, which does have plenty of automatic formatting moves, but is pretty flexible; it allows user over-ride of almost anything. There are still minor irritations about those automations that you can't fiddle with, but it's quite easy to get professional-looking results. But you have to know your notation rules to begin with. You have to be in control. (I guess Finale is pretty similar; I've never used it, but it does look good.)

 

I always work from notation first and copy and paste to tab (ie when preparing music for students; I don't use tab for myself). The only time I've worked the other way is with banjo music: the high G means (for me) that banjo tab is often easier to read than notation.

 

I used to use Mozart, many years ago, which was cheap and basic, but - because of that - very difficult to tweak for maximum clarity. (Maybe I'm a bit anal about how notation looks, because I trained as a graphic designer. I sometimes find myself squinting even at professional printed music .)

[Poparad]

Finale is the epitome of what I call "user hostile". It may as well open with the message "WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANT?".

 

I'm a very avid Finale user, using it almost daily, and this made me chuckle.

[JonR]

I'm a very avid Finale user, using it almost daily, and this made me chuckle.

Yes -the Sibelius equivalent is not exactly hostile, but supercilious:

 

"Yes, sir, we have this. We also have this, and all of these. Are you sure you know what you want? Perhaps I can recommend this? (although I suspect you're too dumb to understand it) Honestly I really think you should go with this, and not worry your silly little head about all the stuff we have in the back... I'll find an assistant to help you carry it to your car... you do have a car??"

[GreenAsJade]

With a little application of effort, I've been able to represent any rhythms I've tried to do in Guitar Pro (which is what the transcription looks like).

 

You can definitely write rhythms the way you want to, the way they are supposed to be. You can control beaming, ties, anything you need really.

 

I've also seen absolutely awful rhythm representation in Guitar Pro. This is the same as the notes themselves. Just because the TAB is on a nice lookiong stave, instead of asci text, doesn't mean the notes or the rhythm are correct

 

Usually, it becomes quickly apparent that the person doing the transcription had no clue about, and made no especial attempt to represent correctly, the rhythm. They just wack notes in of approximately the right duration until the bar fills up, then go onto the next one.

 

The nice thing about guitar pro is that you can play back what you have written. The notes sound kinda bad, because it's not a real guitar, just guitar-like-notes, but the rhythm certainly is played back exactly as you wrote it, and its completely clear if you got it wrong. It's just that very few transcribers take this trouble. You have to consider yourself lucky if they got the notes correct, never mind the rhythm.

 

GaJ

[benzem]

 

Humans can notate music. Computers can't. Guitar pro - like any automatic notation-from-tab software - is way too literal. : it may be accurate (according to certain non-essential criteria), but that doesn't mean clear. If you fed that notation back into a midi sequencer it might well sound correct. But notation is for humans to read (and interpret), and needs editing and formatting by literate humans to make it legible; which is down to economy of symbol usage (eg, use of staccato 8ths instead of 16ths plus 16th rests - it takes a human to realise the former is better); as well as accurate placement within barlines, and proper beaming of notes.

 

 

Exactly