Tabbing Converse

[Rob MacKillop]

Tabbing Converse is very likely a waste of time - as I've just found out. It took me an hour to do one short piece, Modoc Reel, and trying to put in all the info Converse supplies is quite a challenge. I've noticed Marc Smith's and Tim Twiss's attempts and comments, and have to agree with them that it is a difficult job.

 

Here's my tab-only version of The Modoc Reel: Modoc Banjo.pdf 

 

Converse uses three versions of the number 1 to indicate the striking finger:

 

A 1 on its own begins a 'Combination' stroke where the stroke is played in combination with the thumb resting in preparation on another string

 

A 1 with a dot under it indicates a 'Hammer' stroke - a firm downward stroke without the thumb falling simultaneously onto another string. The Thumb supports the index finger by resting on it.

 

A 1 with a line through it - this appears quite often but I can't find an explanation of it. Does anyone know?

 

I've indicated the first two with a C for Combination and an H for Hammer. I have made things less cluttered by not indicating that it is the thumb which strikes the fifth string.

 

The question is - how much of this is needed? How much of it would be obvious? How much of it needs to be indicated? Does the notation differ from modern clawhammer technique enough to warrant the time to notate every right-hand fingering? Could Converse have simplified things by just saying that any finger strike that is not followed by a thumb stroke should be a hammer stroke?

 

I know the ideal would be a facsimile on one page and the tab on the facing page, but let's face it, most people would not keep darting back between the two. I can see the point of having the tab beneath the standard notation, but even there, how much info do we duplicate in each stave, as most folk are not likely to look at both?

[Tim Twiss]

Tabbing Converse is very likely a waste of time
Tabbing Converse is very likely a waste of time
Tabbing Converse is very likely a waste of time
Tabbing Converse is very likely a waste of time
Tabbing Converse is very likely a waste of time
Tabbing Converse is very likely a waste of time

Couldn't have said it better myself. Tab is good for easy stuff...this material is just too specific..and justified in its specificness.

[Joel Hooks]

I know that I have been outspoken on this recently but with good reason.

I feel like I seriously deprived myself by not learning to read. I'm still not the best at it, but below the 10th I'm not half bad at sight in the natural keys and relative minors..

I do realize that in order to try and turn this into a living TAB is the thing to do, but the big question is why TAB at all.

I've been pretty much on my own here in Dallas. All it took was for Clarke to convince me that it was not hard, thats it. I thought that reading was only something that educated folks did.

We should get the word out, despite the best efforts of the industry to keep folks illiterate.

I guess it is easy for me to say, at this point I have no intentions in making a living at this. I guess I can rub the publishers wrong all I want.

It is obviously a lot of trouble to convert his stuff to simplified form, seems like too much trouble when its not bad as is.

[Rob MacKillop]

Well, I'm not trying to make a living out of this either, Joel. That would be near impossible. I don't play gigs. I've never met another classic banjo player in my life. So I too am 'on my own'. But I have been a teacher for 30 years or so, and I do know that some people, especially those who are no longer spring chickens, have a complete and utter mental block with standard notation, and no matter how many times you, Clarke, or anyone else says that it is 'easy', they cannot and will not learn.

When you hear someone perform music, can you tell whether they read from standard notation or tab? I can't, and I imagine I am not alone in that. Notation - whichever way it is presented - is only a medium through which one learns a tune. For what it's worth, 90 per cent of my reading these days is through standard notation, but as an ex lute player, I think tab is a wonderful medium for learning music. If it was good enough for John Dowland's complex chromatic fantasies, it is good enough for most things. Why Joel equates tab with 'keeping folks illiterate' is a mystery in this context.

That aside, I upgraded my old Sibelius music notation typesetting programme to the latest version, 6, and thought I'd explore tabbing - and what better way to test the software than to try to tab Converse? I agree with Tim, that Converse is VERY specific. That's what makes The Analytical stand out from all other 19th-century banjo publications, and includes THE most detailed exploration of stroke technique. I was questioning how much of his micro-notation was natural and obvious, and therefore just clutter, and how much of it was absolutely necessary.

Tim once described The Analytical as 'like going to school' (or words along those lines) and his work does indeed require detailed study. The simple fact is, though, that his notational system is a complex one, not to mention being written in keys that most banjo players are not ever going to be fluent in. I - like others in the past - have just raised the question as to whether tab would FOR SOME PEOPLE simplify the learning process while simultaneously giving all the necessary information.

One interesting comment, for me at least, by Converse, is his written note to the effect that when you are playing an alternate string pull-off (not that he called it that) in the 1st-time bar (bar 4), he says you should take the first finger off the second string while pulling the first string. I imagine many of us would have left the first finger down at that point.

[Joel Hooks]

Fair enough. TAB it is.

Rob MacKillop said:

Well, I'm not trying to make a living out of this either, Joel. That would be near impossible. I don't play gigs. I've never met another classic banjo player in my life. So I too am 'on my own'. But I have been a teacher for 30 years or so, and I do know that some people, especially those who are no longer spring chickens, have a complete and utter mental block with standard notation, and no matter how many times you, Clarke, or anyone else says that it is 'easy', they cannot and will not learn. When you hear someone perform music, can you tell whether they read from standard notation or tab? I can't, and I imagine I am not alone in that. Notation - whichever way it is presented - is only a medium through which one learns a tune. For what it's worth, 90 per cent of my reading these days is through standard notation, but as an ex lute player, I think tab is a wonderful medium for learning music. If it was good enough for John Dowland's complex chromatic fantasies, it is good enough for most things. Why Joel equates tab with 'keeping folks illiterate' is a mystery in this context.

That aside, I upgraded my old Sibelius music notation typesetting programme to the latest version, 6, and thought I'd explore tabbing - and what better way to test the software than to try to tab Converse? I agree with Tim, that Converse is VERY specific. That's what makes The Analytical stand out from all other 19th-century banjo publications, and includes THE most detailed exploration of stroke technique. I was questioning how much of his micro-notation was natural and obvious, and therefore just clutter, and how much of it was absolutely necessary.

Tim once described The Analytical as 'like going to school' (or words along those lines) and his work does indeed require detailed study. The simple fact is, though, that his notational system is a complex one, not to mention being written in keys that most banjo players are not ever going to be fluent in. I - like others in the past - have just raised the question as to whether tab would FOR SOME PEOPLE simplify the learning process while simultaneously giving all the necessary information.

One interesting comment, for me at least, by Converse, is his written note to the effect that when you are playing an alternate string pull-off (not that he called it that) in the 1st-time bar (bar 4), he says you should take the first finger off the second string while pulling the first string. I imagine many of us would have left the first finger down at that point.

[Tim Twiss]

I am not ant-TAB by any means. I see it as milk, and great to get started with. It makes complex ideas simple. Immediate result. The thing is, it becomes like crack...and hard to quit. By the time one has played a sufficient number of pieces and decided to have some sort of investment in music, make the switch. Note reading really is not any more difficult than TAB reading at all. Plus, you have the entire musical world opened up to you and not just a narrow lens of TAB transcriptions.

[Rob MacKillop]

Well it's not really a debate about whether one should or should not read tab, rather is tab capable of the detail Converse is notating.

[Tim Twiss]

It always becomes a debate. The reply to your Converse/TAB issue is: YES.
Deciding if it is worth it always begs the question, however.

[Trapdoor2]

Every TAB program I've worked with has limitations...as do most notation programs when you start exploring "alternative" notations (like Converse's fingering). I just don't think the programmers are interested in attacking some issues.

Re: Converse, I would not even think about notating to his depth. I would strip out all but the basic stuff. If I really had to fully notate a piece, I would use modern fingering convention...unless the student is willing to read and understand Converse's notation, it seems pointless to reproduce it in the TAB.

One thing I seem to continually run across is alternate string grace-notes. I can make the notation look good or I can make the TAB look good...but I cannot make both (this being in TablEdit). Converse's fingering notes are another issue, TablEdit does allow mixed fingering but does not support dots for fingering, it only has TIM or 1-2-3 options. I can work around it using moden convention...for the most part. The rest often requires a specific playing note or something like that.

So it goes. Anyone experienced in other software?

Re: TAB wars...Personally, I feel I could convert to sight-reading notation in just a few weeks of work. However, I want this music to be played by as many people as possible...and the bulk of American banjo players use/read TAB. I don't want to alienate them or make the music less accessable, quite the opposite. This is why I stick with TAB...I want the average BG or CH player to simply give it a try...the students and players I know would never even attempt it in notation, heck, most won't attempt it in TAB...but some will...and those are the players I target.

[Tim Twiss]

Sibelius does it all.

[Trapdoor2]

Anybody use "Finale"? I can get a student discount for it...so it is considerably cheaper than Sibelius 6.

[Rob MacKillop]

Finale is the prefered software by Mel Bay...luckily it can import Sibelius files. I've heard that it is harder to use but gives more flexible layout options. But I heard that a couple of years ago, so things might have changed.

[Tim Twiss]

I think Finale is the industry standard. I have both, but mostly use Sibelius. I have not spent a lot of time with Finale yet. What about Mel Bay's "prefered" text software? That's a pricey little item.