One good argument FOR tabs

[corporealJigsor]

I hope this doesnt read as offensive to anyone. Not meaning to rip anybody here and typing can sound harsh accidentally. It is hard to convey this thought without stepping on toes so here goes : ) From my own personal experience most guitarists I have met who prefer tab are defensive about the fact that they never took the time it takes to learn to read. Most will vehemently defend Tabs based on this insecurity, and think opinions like this are the ramblings of a non "feel player" or some reading snob. For many years I was a non-reader and avoided "eating my vegetables" so to speak - I was one of these guys. So I plugged away with my Tabs and ears learning riffs and bits and it got me pretty far. When I finally took the time to learn to read in all positions it gave me a far deeper understanding of the neck and embedded the locations of all the notes in my mind in a practical usable form. For all my studying pre-reading days the note locations always eluded me on the fly. To me I became a better player all around from my experience of learning to read notation. Instead of memorizing shapes to get new scales and chords I could just alter already learned shapes accordingly. SO maybe it was the process of the learning that makes it so valuable as much as the tool itself. From this experience, In my opinion if you want to be a better MUSICIAN learn to read. If you just want to play guitar (mostly by yourself or with some buds) Tabs are awesome. Again not trying to be a goof just these are my experiences correct or otherwise.

 

 

Surely its a matter of equal effort in other areas, not effort vs no effort. The time spent learning to read could equally be spent on learning other musical skills. Ear especially.

 

Like with theory vs no theory its always years of effort vs doing {censored} all, not years of effort spent differently.

[corporealJigsor]

If everything else is equal, and one player can read while the other can't, guess which one will work more?

 

 

Not everyone aspires to be a session guitarist.

[jonfinn]

First, I like the fact that people can disagree and still be civil. Although I'm very opinionated, i respect other's right to be equally opinionated. Different POV is what makes the world go 'round!

Depends on the type of gig. Often times it is the guitar who knows how to promote better that works more, playing skills be damned, as sad as that may be. And I'm not disagreeing with you here, by the way. Just making a semi-true joke.

I know that a lot of mediocre players can more attention than they deserve by being competent marketeers. I know what you're saying. In my case, I'm much better at playing music than I am promoting myself, and I could probably do with some tips on marketing!

Just the same, if that happens, it's usually short-lived. Careers are based on what you do repeatedly. If you're out there day after day doing your best, people do catch on!

Finally, I'm not of the opinion that every guitarist needs to read. Some things are almost impossible to notate anyway. I agree that it depends on what you're trying to do.

[corporealJigsor]

We resist reading more because we have a readily available alternative.

If you're in a field of music where reading is needed, then its obviously a great idea to learn.

[jeremy_green]

Surely its a matter of equal effort in other areas, not effort vs no effort. The time spent learning to read could equally be spent on learning other musical skills. Ear especially. Like with theory vs no theory its always years of effort vs doing {censored} all, not years of effort spent differently.

 

 

Again, please dont think I am bashing anyone here, we all learn totally differently. I completely respect that and am not trying to push this opinion on anyone.

 

For me I spent my practice time before I could read properly in a very organized manner. I kept a practice journal attempting to cover as many different areas as I could - ear being my primary. From my experience it was the process of learning to read that improved all other areas of my playing - especially my ear. When you are practicing, for example, learning to read chords. You really go pretty slow and it allows you time to really HEAR the notes. I dont think I was doing that fully prior? I would get the shape and rip it out - you cant do that while you are creeping along. Before long things became a little more intuitive. I could recognize visually the similarity of the shapes which helped me grasp chord substitution concepts that were before just shapes and concepts.

 

Hard to explain but for whatever reason learning to read made me a better player and gave me access to learning Sax lines, or Piano lines that I found interesting.

 

I know it is a drag doing it - especially when we all have so much to cover and so little time available but it is a worthwhile endeavor in my opinion.

[Jasco]

A lot of times I equate performing music with speaking a language.

In both activities, you are using sounds to communicate ideas and emotions. Both require an ability to produce those sounds effortlessly. Both require listening.

Improvised music is like a conversation, wherein you must listen to other peoples ideas and respond.

Composed music is like speaking lines in a play, wherein you are reciting pre-written dialogue. It can simulate a conversation to a third party listener, but it's not one.

Solo music is like a monologue, whether pre-written or improvised.

In both music and speach, even more important than how well a person plays or speaks, is what they have to say.

With that background, I'll relate this to our discussion of reading music here.

One doesn't need to know how to read or write in order to speak well. I know a lot of people who are illiterate, or nearly so, who speak just fine. They are able to convey any emotions or ideas that they have. They could, I imagine, even get jobs in some public speaking capacities, such as a storyteller or standup comedian.

However, their illiteracy does limit both their deeper understanding of the mechanics of language as well as their potential to get many kinds of speaking jobs that would require the ability to read. The lack of reading skills would also prevent easy access to a lot of information that could benefit them in many ways.

That being said, just because someone can read doesn't necessarily make them a better speaker or conversationalist than an illiterate person.


That is my opinion, at least. I'll let you draw your own parallels and conclusions relating speach and literacy to music performance and music reading.

[jeremy_green]

Very well put Jasco! Excellent points.

 

Ultimately whatever it takes to help you get whats in your head to come out your fingers as accurately as possible is all that matters. Knowing the roadmap can get you there with more confidence - I seemed to need this confidence to help me improvise better.

 

My points were more with regards to a lot of guitarists attitudes towards reading - "dont be hatin" just cause its work. It takes time and effort so a lot of us shrug it off and say "well I am not a session guy or classical player anyway so screw it" and this is true but there are a lot of benefits outside of these elements.

 

Ultimately if you have nothing to say though there isnt much that can help that! But I hear your points and agree fully

[corporealJigsor]

A lot of times I equate performing music with speaking a language. In both activities, you are using sounds to communicate ideas and emotions. Both require an ability to produce those sounds effortlessly. Both require listening. Improvised music is like a conversation, wherein you must listen to other peoples ideas and respond. Composed music is like speaking lines in a play, wherein you are reciting pre-written dialogue. It can simulate a conversation to a third party listener, but it's not one. Solo music is like a monologue, whether pre-written or improvised. In both music and speach, even more important than how well a person plays or speaks, is what they have to say. With that background, I'll relate this to our discussion of reading music here. One doesn't need to know how to read or write in order to speak well. I know a lot of people who are illiterate, or nearly so, who speak just fine. They are able to convey any emotions or ideas that they have. They could, I imagine, even get jobs in some public speaking capacities, such as a storyteller or standup comedian. However, their illiteracy does limit both their deeper understanding of the mechanics of language as well as their potential to get many kinds of speaking jobs that would require the ability to read. The lack of reading skills would also prevent easy access to a lot of information that could benefit them in many ways. That being said, just because someone can read doesn't necessarily make them a better speaker or conversationalist than an illiterate person. That is my opinion, at least. I'll let you draw your own parallels and conclusions relating speach and literacy to music performance and music reading.

 

 

I would disagree with that analogy because music language is fundamentally meaningful, and music is fundamentally meaningless.

 

Besides, isnt reading tabs just analogous to reading a minority alphabet in this scenario?

 

-edit-

Actually the better point is that words are equally meaningful written or spoken, whereas music exists only when listened to. (if you see my point)

 

By not reading you shut yourself out from the majority of culture, but not reading music still leaves all music as yours.

[corporealJigsor]

Also, ive never really seen why reading music makes theory easier to deeply understand?
(with equal effort)

[Jasco]

By not reading you shut yourself out from the majority of culture, but not reading music still leaves all music as yours.

 

 

Not necessarily, the illiterate person still has access to live conversation, radio, television, movies, and theater. Hardly shutting them out of the majority of culture.

 

 

Also, ive never really seen why reading music makes theory easier to deeply understand? (with equal effort)

 

 

I agree here. Theory is learned in your mind, and ear, and applied on your instrument.

[Jasco]

...music is fundamentally meaningless.

 

 

I've got to disagree here though. Just because something has an abstract meaning, or a highly interpretive one, doesn't mean it is meaningless.

[HeartfeltDawn]

If everything else is equal, and one player can read while the other can't, guess which one will work more?

 

 

That isn't a statement on the inherent qualities of standard notation over tab. You can say that more people would be able to go into an office and get funky with a PC than a Mac just through market saturation. There's a decent argument to say that, given the progress in technology and the fact that people can be more musical whilst simultaneously knowing less about music that musicians in the past, that using notation is a bit 'stuck in the past'. Over the next 20 years, piano and string parts will keep notation going but the next generation of guitarists are learning from tab sites online, downloading MP3s, using things like Guitar Pro and Power tab. Methods of gaining knowledge evolve so should the representation of music change too?

 

Understanding notation gave me a wider potential base of knowledge. It hasn't made me a better player but I can see things in notation I didn't see before and that leads to new ideas. If you're playing in a typical bar band like I do, it's not essential to know it. However notation is a pretty integral part of my second degree so it's been good to learn it.

[jeremy_green]

Also, ive never really seen why reading music makes theory easier to deeply understand? (with equal effort)

 

 

Its not necessarily the theory concepts per se its the application of those principles in action that are helpful.

 

I am a guy who needs to see things in practice to truly know how to use it. I took and passed my theory exams and I did quite well yet I failed to really translate what I learned to the instrument. For example I never fully drew a correlation that the modes are basically your reading positions. While I was learning my reading in the different positions it made it very clear that to change keys I just switch modes and remain in the same position. Modes are a fairly non-discussed aspect of reading yet these are a major source of confusion for many guitarists, what they are, how to use them etc. This on its own (change keys by changing modes) is a simple concept for any of us to grasp yet there is so much confusion - I realize I am over simplifying to make a point so please give the some latitude here. The process of learning to read made this among other things became clear for me. There are many examples of this I could site (but wont because I may be coming off as a pusher).

 

Possibly I would have come to these same realizations without learning to read. Seems oddly coincidental if thats the case.

[Terje]

We resist reading more because we have a readily available alternative.

 

 

I think we resists also becasue we think it is hard to learn to read standard notation. It's not.

 

OK, so it is hard if you aim at being able to read more or less anything prima vista and under pressure either on the bandstand or a studio session. That's aiming very high, most of us won't ever need to learn it that well and for that matter, doing this with tabs is impossible, so even from that point of view it's easy to learn standard notation.

 

The thing with standard notation is that it shows the music, not just how something is played on a guitar in a certain tuning. Learning to read "well enough", meaning for instance that you can get through something that's written for piano and figure out the different parts of the arrangement or that you can write down little ideas that you have fro riffs and songs, or play a simple tune off the page in a songbook, this takes about one month of not so focused practice.

 

One month of playing, reading and copying your favorite melodies and you'll be there. It's not harder than that. That'll get you up to a level where it's very useful already. You can write out ideas for your piano playing friends, you can read anything that's ever been written for any instrument (and guess how much music they have in all these books at you local library) and in the end you'll probably have a better understanding of music in general.

 

One month, not hard work, it's like learning an alphabet with only 12 letters in it, a monkey could do it. The only thing that will ever give you any trouble is reading rhythm but there are ways to make this easier too and this part of reading standard notation is even harder with tabs.

 

Tabs are great for showing how to do something in a particular tuning and that's about it. People turn to it because you need absolutely no brains to learn it, there's nothing to learn, just follow the numbers.

 

I know players who are great at what they do and who can't read. The thing is that they don't read tabs either, really. While it takes nothing away from their ability to play guitar nor makes their ears weaker it does hinder them to some extent. I also know people who are fantastic players who can read very well. Guess what, it's a great help for them.

[LightningFast]

Tabs stink! I'm teaching three guitarists, I'm always correcting what they're learning from tabs. Tabs are mostly wrong from what I've encountered.

As far as learning, a guitarist should learn all methods: Notation, tabs, by ear. Sight reading notation is a challenge.

[gennation]

As a musician you should use every tool available, especially the common ones.

[Knottyhed]

SO maybe it was the process of the learning that makes it so valuable as much as the tool itself.

 

 

For the non-proffessional guitarist *this* is the best reason to learn to read, the process of learning to read music has numerous fringe benefits that'll improve your playing and overall musicianship. Understanding time signatures, internalising music theory, improving your timing, knowing how to find all the notes on the fretboard (and the much deeper knowledge of guitar that goes with it), actually being able to see the music as notes and not as patterns - you get all of that from learning to read music and you get to be able to read music, opening up another learning tool/way to communicate with other musicians.

 

Having said all that, I only have basic reading skills - I get little enough time to practice these days as it is and don't have the need/motivation to become a monster sight reader, so would rather spend my practice time on other things. I still think that everyone should consider learning it though - there's alot of benefits to be had from even spending 10-15 mins a day on it.

 

An argument I hear alot is that alot of guitarists think their hero's couldn't read either - if they don't, why should I? Admitedly Hendrix, Clapton, Van Halen (so he says, despite years of classical piano training!) etc. never learnt... but on the flip side great players like Eric Johnson, Jimmy Page, Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, Guthrie Govan do (the list goes on)... the number of good guitar players that read eclipses the list of those that don't.

[Mark Wein]

For the non-proffessional guitarist *this* is the best reason to learn to read, the process of learning to read music has numerous fringe benefits that'll improve your playing and overall musicianship. Understanding time signatures, internalising music theory, improving your timing, knowing how to find all the notes on the fretboard (and the much deeper knowledge of guitar that goes with it), actually being able to see the music as notes and not as patterns - you get all of that from learning to read music and you get to be able to read music, opening up another learning tool/way to communicate with other musicians. Having said all that, I only have basic reading skills - I get little enough time to practice these days as it is and don't have the need/motivation to become a monster sight reader, so would rather spend my practice time on other things. I still think that everyone should consider learning it though - there's alot of benefits to be had from even spending 10-15 mins a day on it. An argument I hear alot is that alot of guitarists think their hero's couldn't read either - if they don't, why should I? Admitedly Hendrix, Clapton, Van Halen (so he says, despite years of classical piano training!) etc. never learnt... but on the flip side great players like Eric Johnson, Jimmy Page, Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, Guthrie Govan do (the list goes on)... the number of good guitar players that read eclipses the list of those that don't.

 

[corporealJigsor]

For the non-proffessional guitarist *this* is the best reason to learn to read, the process of learning to read music has numerous fringe benefits that'll improve your playing and overall musicianship. Understanding time signatures, internalising music theory, improving your timing, knowing how to find all the notes on the fretboard (and the much deeper knowledge of guitar that goes with it), actually being able to see the music as notes and not as patterns - you get all of that from learning to read music and you get to be able to read music, opening up another learning tool/way to communicate with other musicians. Having said all that, I only have basic reading skills - I get little enough time to practice these days as it is and don't have the need/motivation to become a monster sight reader, so would rather spend my practice time on other things. I still think that everyone should consider learning it though - there's alot of benefits to be had from even spending 10-15 mins a day on it. An argument I hear alot is that alot of guitarists think their hero's couldn't read either - if they don't, why should I? Admitedly Hendrix, Clapton, Van Halen (so he says, despite years of classical piano training!) etc. never learnt... but on the flip side great players like Eric Johnson, Jimmy Page, Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, Guthrie Govan do (the list goes on)... the number of good guitar players that read eclipses the list of those that don't.

 

 

Again i dont understand why it would make music theory be any more deeply understood?

[Jasco]

Again i dont understand why it would make music theory be any more deeply understood?

 

 

agreed

[corporealJigsor]

Also wouldnt you be better off spending the time on developing your ear?

[jonfinn]

Also wouldnt you be better off spending the time on developing your ear?

 

 

No. Because reading music and developing your ear are one and the same.

 

The way I see it, it's a bit like trying to explain what "yellow" looks like to someone who's colorblind.

 

I resisted learning to read standard notation for a very long time. When I crossed the bridge, I wondered why every guitarist isn't doing the same because i felt like I'd been missing out on so much.

 

But that's just me.

[Jasco]

Also wouldnt you be better off spending the time on developing your ear?

 

 

Maybe. Maybe not. Depends how much time you have on your hands.

 

If I only had a few minutes to train on a given day, I'd opt for eartraining over sight-reading development. However, anyone wanting to become a real player will of course make a lot of time for training.

 

Then what happens with any given training activity is at some point when you are spending a lot of time on it you'll reach a point of diminishing returns.

 

For example, say you had 4 hours to devote to guitar/music training on a given day. If you favored eartraining over sight reading, you might say, "well I'll spend all 4 hours on eartraining, and then I'll have a superior ear verses the fool who wastes time working on reading."

 

However, the law of diminishing returns says that after a certain point of time investment per day, you are not really getting much payback (results) for your effort.

 

Whereas someone with a more balanced approach - 2 hours reading, 2 hours eartraining - would be getting more benefit for his/her time. And they'd probably have as good of ear as someone that spent all 4 hours eartraining, and also they'd probably be as good as reading as someone who spent all 4 hours reading.

 

Does that make sense?

 

The other factor involved is that often times different types of musical skills help reinforce each other to make a stronger overall product than reliance on any one type of skill could produce.

[Terje]

Also wouldnt you be better off spending the time on developing your ear?

 

 

You're making too big a deal out it. One month, perhaps half an hour a day, basically just playing and copying, that's all it'll take.

[Knottyhed]

Again i dont understand why it would make music theory be any more deeply understood?

 

 

I didn't explicitly say it would... I said that by learning to read music you learn a hell of alot of theory as a fringe benefit. So you kill two birds with one stone.

 

Having said that - I don't believe I ever *truly* understood and internalised time signature until I learnt to read music and despite the fact that I learnt the notes on the fretboard before I learnt to read, I can find them alot better now. So, yeh you can learn theory just fine without learning to read music, just the same way that you can learn to play guitar just fine without learning much theory. The point is that learning one, benefits the other.

 

If you already know all your theory, know about key signatures, know all the notes on the fret board, know about time signatures, note values and have an excellent sense of timing, then learning to read music should be peice of cake for you (you're mostly there already). If you haven't fully internalised all these things, learning to read music will help you do so. So all in all, there aren't really a whole bunch of reasons to not give it a go if you ask me - I don't know anybody that has learnt to read and regretted it.