soppinthegravy - Posted - 03/25/2016:  17:52:20

I'm trying to learn how to transcribe old-time fiddling. If some of you could view the attachments and give me some input, I would appreciate it. The YouTube video is the source of the transcription. The transcription itself is in a PDF.

Update:

Ok, guys. Would y'all mind showing me, rather than just telling me what your transcription of the same tune would look like? (not your arrangement of the tune, but your transcription of Delmer Holland's version of the tune) 

Edited by - soppinthegravy on 03/26/2016 19:39:35

VIDEO: Middle Tennessee Style Old-Time String Band The Blue Creek Ramblers -"Angeline the Baker"
(click to view)

Delmer Holland's Angeline the Baker

Cyndy - Posted - 03/25/2016:  18:59:53

Two suggestions.

1) Use software like TablEdit that allows you to play back the notes you've entered as a midi. It's an easy way to pick up errors in melody or rhythm. But maybe you're already doing that?

2) I also think it's really helpful to think about (and jot down) the bowing along with the notes. It can help you pick out the rhythms and it can be really instructive to see what someone else is doing.

This is a nice tune. I like it. 

 

Cyndy - Posted - 03/25/2016:  19:32:12

One more comment. :)

If you're making a transcription that you plan to share, then it should probably be as accurate as you can make it.



If you're just writing the tune out for yourself as part of your study, then do whatever works comfortably for your purposes!

I will often transcribe something when I'm first learning and sometimes I'm very specific and sometimes I just jot down the pitches and don't even worry about adding the rhythm because it's already in my head. There have even been times when I've just written out bowing that I was having a hard time remembering and the rest just came along naturally.

Dick Hauser - Posted - 03/25/2016:  21:10:26

The am a big time user of notation. Lots of books. The only notation I have seen that comes close to accurately depicting "old time" tunes are written using scordatura. Basically, it looks like regular notation but works like tabulature. If you read standard notation and your fiddle is in an "open" tuning, say AEAE,
you play the note you see, but the note you hear will something else. You can find books that explain how scordatura works. "Old Time" music is very difficult to capture on paper. it took a little while for me to get comfortable using scordatura, but with a little work a person becomes comfortable using it.

The University of Missouri Press has some excellent fiddle publications written in scordatura. If you read standard musical notation, you might get familiar with scordatura. Learn to play a simple tune written in standard notation. Then, create scordatura for the tune, and will be played on a fiddle in open tuning, say AEAE, GDGD, etc.. Avoid ADEA because 3 or the 4 strings are in standard tuning. Remember though, you have to be a notation reader to do this.

BTW, that is very basic notation for Angeline the Baker, and would need a lot of additional input from a fiddler. One more thing. When I refer to "Old Time" fiddling, I am referring to traditional southeastern fiddling. "Old Time" fiddling seems to refer to quite a few styles in fiddling. In fact, some of these "Old Time" versions sound contemporary to me.

Some members will probably mention Thede's book. It has regular notation and scordatura for a bunch of tunes. I bought the book but didn't like her versions. Having this book would let you compare standard notation and scordatura for the same tune. On amazon.com, you can probably buy a used copy for "peanuts". Doing this would help you understand how scordatura works and is used.

soppinthegravy - Posted - 03/25/2016:  21:44:43

I'm focusing exclusively on traditional, Southeastern Old-Time. Most of the local old-time guys in my area don't cross-tune unless they are playing "Black Mountain Rag", "Pretty Polly Ann" or "Bonaparte's Retreat". They are not Bluegrass fiddlers. They are traditional Old-Time fiddlers from Middle Tennessee. 

Edited by - soppinthegravy on 03/25/2016 21:52:04

alaskafiddler - Posted - 03/26/2016:  00:36:46

The font didn't embed correctly on the pdf; it's a bunch of U rather than notes.

From what I can read in that version of tab though, I think you need to check the timing of some of the notes.

My guess is you are trying to do what some other folks do, show some subtle timing nuance idea; but it can end up shifting it too much.That can be very difficult to write in. For simplicity and find easier to follow, I generally  prefer it written a bit more straight, and use listening experience to guide how to articulate subtle timing. (although I learned to interpret the other).

alaskafiddler - Posted - 03/26/2016:  01:00:33

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dick Hauser

 

The am a big time user of notation. Lots of books. The only notation I have seen that comes close to accurately depicting "old time" tunes are written using scordatura.

 

---

Interesting... most of the notation and books I have and seen of cross tuned OT tunes, does not use scordatura notation; just states the tuning, and just written as how it sounds. This includes a lot of pretty accurate transcriptions from fiddlers.

I find standard notation for cross tuning pretty easy to read. I've never really used notation as fingering tab, just used seeing the music as it conforms to the key it's written in (and visually makes music sense); and then knowing the fingerboard for what tuning I'm in (notation or not).

graeme - Posted - 03/26/2016:  01:08:53

I began transcribing before we had "amazing slowdowners", so my approach is rather "methodical".

First, I listen for the form. I sketch out the music I want to transcribe in sections, then phrases. So, a reel would often be A (8 bars), and B (8 bars), and I know what bars are the same, or very nearly so, and what bars begin new motifs. At this point, I have the time signature in place, first and second time bars, intro, coda, fills, etc in place.  And, I know how many bars of music I am transcribing, what the tempo is (check with one of those things that click).

Second, I write the rhythm of the whole piece. It helps to have that thing that goes click, clicking along with you, (with me, that is), as I write the rhythm into the form. Skip any tricky ornaments, for now, just note that they happen - but slides, rolls, trebles, etc are usually pretty easy to spot and get into place.

Third, and by now you (I) should be nearly weary of listening to the tune in question, I can probably play most of the chords and melody on piano. And the key signature, and dynamic marks, if they matter to you.  I write all that down, after I have played with the mp3 a few times.

Expect sequences, expect two bar phrases answering two bar phrases, expect the harmony to follow patterns you have heard for years (in transcribing jazz, mark the change of keys on your form outline as soon as possible -- it helps). 

At this stage, have a beer, for you have 90% of it done. And at least 2% of it will worry you for ever, and every smart-Alec musician who hears the remaining 8% will tell you what is should be. So, get one or two mates around, separately, to hear your efforts, and the original, and to do their smart-Alec stuff, (before and during the beer thing), and, hey, your transcribing job is nearly as good as it is going to get.

And you won't need the transcription, now, for you'll be "all over" the arrangement. Play hard, party hard, but go to work tomorrow, no matter what.

(One of the very best jazz and studio musicians, Don Burrows, said to me once, "If a gun jazz musician can't transcribe a song, after two hearings, the performer probably has made a mistake. You get most stuff after one listen." Well, not me: I take an hour or two to transcribe melody and chords anything of some complexity.)

soppinthegravy - Posted - 03/26/2016:  13:54:42

Has everybody listened to the recording? It's attached with the transcription. You can also download TablEdit , MIDI, and ABC here: fiddlehangout.com/tab/browse.a...mp;v=2405

Does the MIDI match the recording? Please listen to both before continuing with the debate. Thanks. 

Edited by - soppinthegravy on 03/26/2016 13:55:34

DougD - Posted - 03/26/2016:  14:24:30

I see the same thing as alaskafiddler - a bunch of Us and lots of other weird things. I thought you were trying to invent a new system based on bowing symbols!

I don't know how to show a picture, but I decoded your abc file and it makes a lot more sense. I don't know how close it is to what he's playing though. If the tempo marking is really quarter note = 500, that's way too fast though - sounds like a Chipmunk dance. One of the problems of writing hoedowns in 4/4 time is that the tempo markings are off anyway, but about half that is probably what you're looking for.

alaskafiddler - Posted - 03/26/2016:  15:57:23

I did listen to the recording, that's why I questioned some of the timing. Points to one of the issues of trying to show articulation with quantitized timing (using just using simple eighth notes).

soppinthegravy - Posted - 03/26/2016:  18:44:28

Ok, guys. Would y'all mind showing me, rather than just telling me what your transcription of the same tune would look like? (not your arrangement of the tune, but your transcription of Delmer Holland's version of the tune)

Edited by - soppinthegravy on 03/26/2016 18:49:37

Bruce Clausen - Posted - 03/26/2016:  19:01:12

Looks pretty good to me.  Basic notes and rhythm are there. You might add the occasional open string drones we hear on the recording. Also there are a few in-between ornamental notes not shown in the transcription. Up to you whether you want to indicate all the places he plays out of tune. I wouldn't bother. Seems like a good useful rendering.

Transcribing is the flip side of sight-reading. Reading, you see the notes and hear the sound. Transcribing, you hear the sound and see the notes. Good job.

alaskafiddler - Posted - 03/27/2016:  21:39:16

My comment on the timing of the notation in the OP, was mostly about the timing of the articulations.

There are different goals folks have for writing down timing in tunes. One is simply communicating the figurative gist of the tune (but requires a bit of interpretation, and comes from experience). The other is literal, exact  and "correct" timing instructions.

To show what I was trying to say.... I made some rough examples.

This first is a basic overly-simplified draft, which I often start with. Yes it's missing some notes... it's goal is start with layout the main idea of the timing, leaving out grace notes, anticipations, pushes, pulls, ornament. Shows a simple communication of the tune, and illustrates the main melodic note emphasis within the basic rhythmic structure.

View PDF - and/or Play MIDI

From this, I added some; to give the ideas of some grace notes; as well as some idea of anticipation, pushes. But not intended as literal quantitative timing, just pointing that direction.

View PDF and/or Play MIDI

Didn't spend much time to refine this.... just to show some examples.  The main difference I wanted to show in this vs your version has to do with how to show some of the nuances of articulations. He is using anticipations, pushes, (and pulls), all over the place....  your writing placed many of them very far forward. (You asked for feedback, no?). My preference is generally not to do that, besides being way too early IMO, it starts to distort the basic idea of the tune's melodic and metric pulse cohesion; as well as the idea that anticipation/push is just that. IMO sometimes makes it harder to read, and conceptualize playing.

Of course there are more refinements that could be written for anticipation timing. But not without adding a deal of complexity. As well in getting some ornament, grace notes. For example, (in both yours and mine), measure 2 and 6, the E to F# note, isn't quite right in timing, (IMO the E is a bit more of quick grace note snap, F# is the main)  - so could be written better... either with using smaller value and/or using grace note symbol. (Like acciaccatura?)

But this is where it gets a little to think about. what goal  Can the rougher less precise probably get the idea across?  What easy options are there? It's all a trade off of making it easier to read and grasp, vs more precise or trying to map out literally exact of when notes are played which can be complex to read. Swing eighths are another example.  How much and precise should we write in anticipating, pushing and pulling articulation..... as well as showing quick grace note slurs, slides, ornament,..... versus simple and use familiarity to interpret?

soppinthegravy - Posted - 03/28/2016:  00:39:08

Thanks, Alaska, you are the first person to do something like this for me, and I really appreciate it. I'll probably be posting an updated version soon that combines elements of our two versions. I would be interested to know your thoughts on it as well. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by alaskafiddler

 

My comment on the timing of the notation in the OP, was mostly about the timing of the articulations.

There are different goals folks have for writing down timing in tunes. One is simply communicating the figurative gist of the tune (but requires a bit of interpretation, and comes from experience). The other is literal, exact  and "correct" timing instructions.

To show what I was trying to say.... I made some rough examples.

This first is a basic overly-simplified draft, which I often start with. Yes it's missing some notes... it's goal is start with layout the main idea of the timing, leaving out grace notes, anticipations, pushes, pulls, ornament. Shows a simple communication of the tune, and illustrates the main melodic note emphasis within the basic rhythmic structure.

View PDF - and/or Play MIDI

From this, I added some; to give the ideas of some grace notes; as well as some idea of anticipation, pushes. But not intended as literal quantitative timing, just pointing that direction.

View PDF and/or Play MIDI

Didn't spend much time to refine this.... just to show some examples.  The main difference I wanted to show in this vs your version has to do with how to show some of the nuances of articulations. He is using anticipations, pushes, (and pulls), all over the place....  your writing placed many of them very far forward. (You asked for feedback, no?). My preference is generally not to do that, besides being way too early IMO, it starts to distort the basic idea of the tune's melodic and metric pulse cohesion; as well as the idea that anticipation/push is just that. IMO sometimes makes it harder to read, and conceptualize playing.

Of course there are more refinements that could be written for anticipation timing. But not without adding a deal of complexity. As well in getting some ornament, grace notes. For example, (in both yours and mine), measure 2 and 6, the E to F# note, isn't quite right in timing, (IMO the E is a bit more of quick grace note snap, F# is the main)  - so could be written better... either with using smaller value and/or using grace note symbol. (Like acciaccatura?)

But this is where it gets a little to think about. what goal  Can the rougher less precise probably get the idea across?  What easy options are there? It's all a trade off of making it easier to read and grasp, vs more precise or trying to map out literally exact of when notes are played which can be complex to read. Swing eighths are another example.  How much and precise should we write in anticipating, pushing and pulling articulation..... as well as showing quick grace note slurs, slides, ornament,..... versus simple and use familiarity to interpret?

---

soppinthegravy - Posted - 03/28/2016:  20:20:05

Update:

Here is what I believe to be the most basic form of his melody, without including any of the embellishments or anticipations. It is attached in JPG format this time. I'll post another version later.

Edited by - soppinthegravy on 03/28/2016 20:22:39

soppinthegravy - Posted - 03/29/2016:  22:58:39

Another attempt at transcribing the tune, this time using the free Finale Notepad. Your thoughts?

Dave S - Posted - 04/07/2016:  22:38:22

Daniel, bare-bones is OK, but for his rendition of the tune I'd include the syncopation ("anticipations"?) as you had in the orig. pdf. Otherwise the rhythmic feel doesn't come across at all.

DougD - Posted - 04/08/2016:  12:38:59

Do you know where Mr. Holland learned this tune? I'm interested in its history.

Dave S - Posted - 04/09/2016:  22:07:52

Treatise on ATB's origin on this page (scroll down): ibiblio.org/fiddlers/AN_AP.htm

Edited by - Dave S on 04/09/2016 22:08:25

soppinthegravy - Posted - 04/10/2016:  00:36:17

Dave, I feel the same way. I made an updated PDF and jpeg of the full melody that includes them. I'd like to know your thoughts on it. I'll attach the files to this post.fiddlehangout.com/global/ckedi.../icon.png) center no-repeat #ff0000;cursor:pointer;top:-1px;-webkit-border-radius:0px 0px 2px 2px;border-radius:0px 0px 2px 2px" title="Insert paragraph here">↵

quote

:

---

Originally posted by Dave S

 

Daniel, bare-bones is OK, but for his rendition of the tune I'd include the syncopation ("anticipations"?) as you had in the orig. pdf. Otherwise the rhythmic feel doesn't come across at all.

---

Edited by - soppinthegravy on 04/10/2016 00:40:29

Angeline Draft 8

 

Dave S - Posted - 04/11/2016:  09:29:34

That looks fine to me. He varies details here and there as most fiddlers do, but your snapshot captures the sense of his version, imo. 

alaskafiddler - Posted - 04/11/2016:  23:33:47

My 2 cents. It's difficult to transcribe the timing of much of these fiddle tunes, in a quantitative sense. It's a question of how to  communicate. Part of that is in the eye of the reader... how they might interpret it.

I appreciate that you are trying to show the concept of anticipation, but, for example, in measure 2 going into 3. The second beat - F# 1/8 note - then followed by an A 1/8 note as anticipation, seems to be too early, (play it on the &) seems to not giving the F# it's proper weight; and making the A note with less sense a qualitative anticipation (pushing into a beat) more of a specific jolt of syncopation. At least to my ears, it just doesn't seem like that syncopated rhythm. (and as such perahps a little more confusing to read?)

The other thing might mention is... for visual communication of anticipation, if it might not be better to NOT beam those 2 notes? In other words, separate the anticipation note from it's predecessor?

Just suggestions.

FWIW - That anticipation he's using is not that uncommon, In transcription examples I've seen, dealing with indicating a sense of anticipation (pushing into a beat), it more seems half the values; but often seem to just leave it most of it out, with the idea to make it easier to read, get the sense of the tune, using listening experience to put that qualitative in.

BTW - the pdf still has substituted U's instead of notes... could be some font issue?

Edited by - alaskafiddler on 04/11/2016 23:39:02

Dave S - Posted - 04/12/2016:  10:07:34

Alaska, what device are you using to look at the pdf? I'm using a Windows desktop machine and the notes display normally. 

Without the beamed "anticipation" notes, the notation would be simpler but wouldn't capture a big chunk of what makes this guy's version of the tune unique and charming (the rest being the melody notes). I would then consider it a 2nd-rate transcription. 

DougD - Posted - 04/12/2016:  11:09:38

So I'm looking at it on my laptop running Windows XP. If I just click the link its a mess - not just the "Us" George mentioned, but the key signature is messed up, as well as the time signature, there's no clef sign, and big ampersands here and there too. Completely incomprehensible.

However, if I download the file using "Save Link as..." and open it in the current version of Adobe Reader on my laptop its fine. ????

Edited by - DougD on 04/12/2016 11:16:13

DougD - Posted - 04/12/2016:  11:42:58

PS - I just tried it on my tablet running Android 5.1. Just linking the link it displays fine. I think clicking  the link on some devices may display only a thumbnail preview, but enlarged. Or who knows what.

Dave S - Posted - 04/12/2016:  11:48:53

Doug, it may be that some pdf spec has changed and you need to upgrade your pdf reader plug-in for the browser.

Heh--you're one of the happy 181-million-strong throng: http://www.techconnect.com/article/3054528/microsoft-windows/zombie-os-windows-xp-still-powers-181m-pcs-two-years-after-support-ends.html

Edited by - Dave S on 04/12/2016 11:51:32

graeme - Posted - 04/12/2016:  16:20:52

On my Windows 10 machines, everything displays correctly. On my Linux machines, the pdf output is nonsense.  It has to be included fonts, supplied in one context by default, and needed to be hand-installed on the other.

I actually thought this transcription had reached its "usability" some time ago. While the range of ornaments used over the repetitions of the original performance, and the drones one other contributor pointed out, the anticipations etc were notated usefully.

This is where the transcriber hands the chart off, and other people sense their own interpretation and introduce nuances as they prefer.

When you try to notate everything you do get messy output.  Have a look at jazz transcriptions: books full are available.  While they are excellent, they are not "everything", as a comparison with the original would reveal.

And this is not to belittle transcribing or notating music. These are vastly important musical activities, but the "player" still needs to function as a musician.

Lonesome Fiddler - Posted - 04/12/2016:  17:44:42

"And this is not to belittle transcribing or notating music. These are vastly important musical activities, but the "player" still needs to function as a musician."

Ah...  Music to my ears!

alaskafiddler - Posted - 04/12/2016:  20:01:49

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave S

 

Without the beamed "anticipation" notes, the notation would be simpler but wouldn't capture a big chunk of what makes this guy's version of the tune unique and charming (the rest being the melody notes). I would then consider it a 2nd-rate transcription. 

 

---

Taking out the beaming doesn't change the note values,  just write with same values; written as 2 separate notes. It thus puts a visual white space between;  just a suggestion of a way that folks use to make it easier to visually see the phrasing.

Anticipations like what's in this tune are fairly common, and certainly important to part of playing the music... Can be difficult to capture precisely in notation... for a literal reading. At least without making it overly complex to read. So have to involve some degree of subjectivity, interpretation, implied familiarity of style. I wasn't trying to argue right/wrong.... all of those can probably usefully work... just suggesting various options. Looking at others transcriptions and hearing the recordings, shows examples how others approached it.  Maybe members Dave Reiner, Jeff Todd Titon, , Drew Beisswenger, Paul Gifford would chime in?

This is where the transcriber hands the chart off, and other people sense their own interpretation and introduce nuances as they prefer.

The comments of many transcribers echo something like this, mentioning the importance of listening... and mention as why they don't include some of the anticipations.

This reminds me of one thing I recall reading as pointed out by one transcriber, the difference in anticipation vs syncopation - Where if the note just is on the front of the beat, starting early, pushing into the beat... AND the emphasis of accent still falls on the beat,  it's more sense anticipation, intended as non-fixed interpretive articulation, even if quite early; (and as such just typically writes on the beat, or with a grace note to imply) - If it's an actual fixed displacement, then that is more sense of syncopation. So that perhaps is something to consider? I IRC  Jeff Todd Titon only puts in if the first part acts as a pickup note, and there is a mid-bow pulse on the down beat.

One thing I forgot to mention to think about learning to use and include grace notes; like the E note that precede the A note downbeats in this tune. IMO they are helpful, and don't make it particularly harder to read. I am a little unclear of the differences between some of them, and writing before the bar or not;  -  perhaps graeme could clarify the differences, and which is better suited for this.

Dave S - Posted - 04/12/2016:  22:40:13

But if you don't beam the notes, they would be played as separate notes, no? That's a quite different sound. I would consider that an error in the transcription were I to learn the tune from the notation and afterward hear the guy's version. I don't think this is a matter of excessive detail or nuance; it is a simple example of syncopation consistently employed in the tune, and the beamed notes provide the reader with what he/she needs to know to approximate the sound. Keep in mind the goal of the transcription was not to provide a vanilla ATB which may then be messed with; it was instead to get across how this particular guy interpreted ATB, presumably because it is a rather unique take on the tune. If the intention were to create a generic version suitable for personalizing, I'd agree with you about leaving out details.

Not sure I buy a qualitative distinction between 'anticipation' and 'syncopation'. My inclination is to label it syncopation based simply on where the note begins. Are there established terms to describe flavors of syncopation--before vs. after the "expected" place, and degree of temporal displacement? 

Dave S - Posted - 04/13/2016:  09:05:12

Uh-oh--I'm confusing beams and ties. Now I see what you meant, which doesn't disturb the sound. 

soppinthegravy - Posted - 04/13/2016:  15:52:03

I think Alaska got them confused as well. Also, I'm interested to know whether he is actually trying to represent Delmer's phrasing or if he is trying to clean it up. I'm trying to do the former, not the latter. For example, If he starts the first note of each part on the "and" every time, I'm going to reflect that in the notation.

Edited by - soppinthegravy on 04/13/2016 15:53:21

Dave S - Posted - 04/13/2016:  17:13:31

I think Alaska was referring to measures 2, 4, and 6, for example. De-beaming the last note in each of these measures from its preceding note might emphasize the tie to the following note (in the next measure). Dunno....if anything, I'd just like the notes to all be spaced a little more widely, but that's just a matter of taste...and my so-so reading ability.

Lonesome Fiddler - Posted - 04/14/2016:  12:58:18

Why not notate crescendos, decrescendos, and stylistic cues such as dolce, molto moderato, con spirito or alla Salyer?

 

Edited by - Lonesome Fiddler on 04/14/2016 13:00:10

TuneWeaver - Posted - 04/14/2016:  14:15:10

You can put Way Too Much in sheet music form.. Even in classical music, much is left open to interpretation.. In my opinion, sheet music for Old Time music HELPS, but the finer points of any tune can only be learned by Listening or by incorporating nuances that seem to escape pen and paper.....

alaskafiddler - Posted - 04/15/2016:  12:44:47

quote:

---

Originally posted by soppinthegravy



I think Alaska got them confused as well. Also, I'm interested to know whether he is actually trying to represent Delmer's phrasing or if he is trying to clean it up. I'm trying to do the former, not the latter.

---

My beaming comment was just a technique used to put visual white space, to aid in reading of phrasing.

I'm not sure what you mean "clean it up" - but my comments and suggestions were toward representing essence of Delmer's version; though not particularly as in literal precision, detail, and complexity of trying to document as written recording; nor for literal precise instruction of how to play; with little or no need of interpretative understanding, familiarity. (those are some transcriptions ideas) But I was think more common transcription which tries to capture the the essence; but requires some interpretation (familiarity and understanding of concepts)  and that there are various ways others approach representing those. As far as the essence of the tune;

quote:

---

Originally posted by soppinthegravy



For example, If he starts the first note of each part on the "and" every time, I'm going to reflect that in the notation.

---

There's perhaps where the confusion lies. IMO -there is difference between two concepts. You are indicating -

And -  and  two and One  -  two And  -  and two and One  -  two And  - and two and One  - two And .-  and ..

If that syncopation emphasis is how you interpret, think of it, (consistent and stressed) what you want to literally represent.... then you need to write as such; and other ways (and my comments) would not make sense to you.

I don't conceive the rhythm having that syncopation of emphasis on the "and"

Myself, (and others)  think of it as different concept than that syncopation; what I distinguished as - "anticipation" -  more of this perhaps....

waaUN! and two and One -  two - whaaaUN! and two and One  -  two - ehUN! and two and One -

For this, I consider a few things..

The focus, more on where the emphasis/stressed is directed; not necessarily on where a note starts; it could be in how it ends, or swells to the loudest part, or might have a push/snap. The concept is a technique device of leading into, pushed into; the start is unstressed; and might not precisely start on unit or beat before; the before part might be somewhat variable in articulation length. Slides often work this way. I also consider if there are slight grace notes involved, which would typically thought to come before the emphasis.

My previous comment about starting with a basic concept of timing, where the conceptual emphasis is focused; then build off of that, weighing options about conveying the nuances. Balance of how much detail/precision, how much rely on interpretation, and ease of reading;  to convey concept and essence. (complex though more precise can be more difficult to grasp the essence) These anticipation articulations are fairly common, esp in fiddling and singing.  So I see examples of the large quarter of meter tie as one option, smaller eighth of meter tie as another, and then some which write none (relying purely on implied interpretation ability, and because it is commonly how you would include it as you play) - Kind of a catch 22 - if you are fairly familiar with the sound of articulation device, and interpreting the notation, any of these would probably work. If not familiar.. trying to literally play it, none of them would really work.

FWIW - banjo tab hardly ever includes that tie, even though they still might articulate an in front pulse.

Edited by - alaskafiddler on 04/15/2016 12:57:41

soppinthegravy - Posted - 04/16/2016:  01:13:44

Alaska, Is this what you are talking about concerning the beaming? I think it does represent his phrasing a bit better.

Edited by - soppinthegravy on 04/16/2016 01:23:15

TuneWeaver - Posted - 04/16/2016:  14:36:37

I'm probably coming into this a little last.. Exactly WHY do you want to transcribe OT music? Is it for your own use? for teaching others? for posterity?  Experienced fiddler rarely play  a tune the same two times in a row.. Most 'forwards' of music collections mention this and point out that there is no One way to play a tune... I'd like to know what is going on in your mind about this...really, curiosity has got the best of me..(also really, NO insult intended.)  

alaskafiddler - Posted - 04/16/2016:  15:42:08

quote:

---

Originally posted by soppinthegravy

 

Alaska, Is this what you are talking about concerning the beaming? I think it does represent his phrasing a bit better.

---

Yes I think so...  as I mentioned before, I think of anticipation, lead-in to a beat, so I like using a little more visual white space between end of phrase and pickup to next, pushing the pickup note closer so it alludes to being a lead-in;  (esp at end of parts) Can be problem with some software doesn't allow much control of these aspects. BTW this is all  optional, beaming woks okay too... just mentioned as things to consider in helping folks read (struggles I see students have). Has something to do with psychological, conceptual and cognition; that the visual tend to have an affect how they might play it, even though technical value it hasn't changed. For example 4 separate eighth notes vs beam of 2 and 2, vs beam of 4... have same value, but the first tends to be played more as separate notes, second as groups of 2, an the last more as one group. There are various other visual tricks like this that folks use,  again they are usually optional.

Another spot is that mid-meter beat (even meters) also could be written to more visually show the first beat followed detachment, then by pickup to the second beat... BAA  -  baDOP...  just a thought.

Another related thing to consider as far as visual space... some folks really do not like if the meters are crammed together; by the same token some folks don't like if too spread out. Both can be a little more difficult to read. As well there are considerations about Parts (and maybe phrases) where to split to a new line, or having one widow meter.

Edited by - alaskafiddler on 04/16/2016 15:45:34

soppinthegravy - Posted - 04/17/2016:  20:33:51

Alaska,

Are you talking about  a specific section of the tune? To which "mid-meter beat" are you referring?    

quote

:

---

Originally posted by alaskafiddler

​Another spot is that mid-meter beat (even meters) also could be written to more visually show the first beat followed detachment, then by pickup to the second beat... BAA  -  baDOP...  just a thought.

 

 

Edited by - soppinthegravy on 04/17/2016 20:34:47

alaskafiddler - Posted - 04/18/2016:  14:31:33

Referring to measures, 2, 4, 6, 8...  in how they have a dotted eighth (BAAA) followed by a sixteenth pickup to beat 2 (baDOP).  Or as (from 1e&a2e&a); would show  - 1   a2  

That "a" possibly could be written as a grace note instead, which indicates more of shorter( if not flick) pickup function to the beat 2

 

Edited by - alaskafiddler on 04/18/2016 14:39:04

soppinthegravy - Posted - 04/21/2016:  13:13:07

I tried converting those sixteenth notes to grace notes. Unfortunately, when I did that, they sounded too short on playback. 

Dave S - Posted - 04/21/2016:  23:03:11

Daniel, what you already had ain't broke, so.....

soppinthegravy - Posted - 04/21/2016:  23:25:05

Which of the following formats for this transcription would you find easiest to interpret?

A. Standard notation

B. Fiddle Tab 

C. Mandolin Tab

D. Fiddle Tab with notes names in place of finger numbers

boxbow - Posted - 04/22/2016:  08:22:29

Standard notation, hands down.  Pun fully intentional.

alaskafiddler - Posted - 04/22/2016:  16:16:21

quote:

---

Originally posted by soppinthegravy

 

I tried converting those sixteenth notes to grace notes. Unfortunately, when I did that, they sounded too short on playback. 

---

Grace notes are not meant to be played that way the machine is playing it. Comes back to the concept of subjective interpretation. Shortcoming of MIDI playback, a machine...  by default might not handle playback of these things well; interpretation has to be programmed in to play just right.

Music being read by human beings though...  grace notes (and other ornaments) are not intended to have a specific fixed literal value in how executed or expressed;  and require applying interpretation of the intent. Involves being stylistic informed; (or historically informed in classical music).

Getting a MIDI to get the durations right can be complex, as the actual duration is somewhat between simple logical choices. This includes ornaments, rolls, turns, grace notes, as well as swing, hornpipes, strathspeys... (some programs allow for adjusting MIDI playback settings of these).

Just  mentioning that basic MIDI playback is often usually only useable as a rough guide, it's literal playing might be not be much of a guide to if it written fine.

edit: I like standard notation... it offers, to me, easier visibility at a glance, of the contour and structure.

Edited by - alaskafiddler on 04/22/2016 16:19:48

soppinthegravy - Posted - 04/26/2016:  22:46:08

Isn't it kind of risky to leave stuff to interpretation if you're trying to represent note-for note how a certain person plays a tune? 

alaskafiddler - Posted - 04/27/2016:  14:50:11

Risky?

This kind of goes toward what Lee mentioned... what is the purpose of the transcription? Good question, and relates to then how to read notation. (maybe good other topic discussion).

There is the belief that notation can tell one how to sound, just follow the note by note instruction precisely and (if written right) you will be playing it "just like" the source; no real need to have listening experience and interpretation.

There is the other idea, the idea of much of what makes a fiddler's music (or most music) is more than just the notes, note by note; it is the expressive articulation, nuances... much of which can't be very well or pragmatically contained in notation, if at all.  As such, notation used to represent, communicate (and sometimes just imply) the concept(s); but depend on understanding genre, style; listening, experience, familiarity, is needed to help interpret. (this might involve contemplating or absorbing a bit of  the "why").

I suppose it's a choice of who you are writing for.