Obviously, headphones are the very first thing to recommend if you aren't already using them.

A good pair of noise-cancelling headphones works both ways; you can be thumpin' it at 95dB and nobody

but you will hear it.

The sound produced by you hitting a rubber pad with a drumstick is a dull thunk, typically quieter than an ordinary conversation.

If you have legitimate concerns about that noise getting through the walls into adjacent apartments, I would be taking them up with the landlord.

If it's really a problem, you can hang a heavy curtain on the wall separating you from your nearest neighbor, perhaps leaving an air gap of an inch or two, and that should dampen the sound transfer through the walls considerably.

The bigger concern is typically the pedals; when you step on them, you are making a bigger thump with your foot than the beater or the cymbal triggers make, but all of that is combining on the hardwood floor to make it sound like you're pounding on the floor (which you are).

The solution to that is pretty simple; invest in an 8x10' area rug with a nice thick pile (even a carpet remnant, with a layer between it and the hardwood to prevent marring, would work fine on a budget), and put your kit on that.

This will isolate the kit from the floor, which is the main means of vibration transfer this setup would have that could irritate the neighbors.

Understand that over time the pile will compact under the weight and pressure of the kit's feet.

Carpet protectors will mitigate this but can also defeat the purpose; they have spikes designed to hold whatever's on the carpet off of it, by transferring the load under the pile to the subfloor, which is exactly what you don't want.

Mesh should certainly be quieter, but to help save the sanity of your neighbours below, you will need to look at an isolated drum riser.

Tennis balls could work, but more commonly you see neoprene pads as these do a very good job reducing transmission of vibrations.

Underneath that you could also use a square of carpet cut to the size of the riser as this will add another layer.

Sand.

The Grateful Dead lined their space in sand, Moby encased his NY apartment in sand.

If you are on the second floor, put your set on a sandbox.

Line the walls with sand bags.

It's cheap, portable, labor intensive, works great.

You'd probably get a kick out of this article, sums up the plight of the modern drummer well: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=22178

This is a good start for anyone who needs a sub-$30 drum riser solution: I strongly recommend just buying a few tiles of "foam plywood sub-floor" (see link below).

I bought 6 and stapled a cheap rug to them to prevent them from spreading apart.

It acts as a great insulate drum riser, and has the added benefit of providing a uniform carpeted surface that pedals and stands won't move around on.

I had many noise complaints before I built my studio, but the simple foam raised surface kept the neighbors at bay.

Example: http://m.homedepot.com/p/Barricade-1-in-x-2-ft-x-2-ft-OSB-R3-2-Insulated-Subfloor-Tile-OVRX2424R32/203640688/ PS

- it's interesting how much people complain about the noise of electronic drums, yet not about other instruments.

Mesh is quiter.

I have a Roland TD-8

(all mesh drums) and have compared that to rubber pads.

The issue (which I also have) is twofold : The sound coming from the pad itself, and how much is transferred to the floor- which then transfers to adjacent rooms and of course to the room under you.

The rubber pad is a solid hit - quiet, but transfers the shock of the stick hitting the pad directly to the kits cage/stand (and so to the floor).

Mesh makes a MUCH better job of dispersing the shock, and the bounce comes from the elasticity in the mesh (like a real drum) so not only are they quieter, they feel much more like a drum.

Things to bear in mind : Cymbals:

Also rubber (normally)

so they transfer some shock to thecage and floor as well.

Not as much as a pad as they're normallythinner and absorb more of the shock themselves.

Bass drum pedal :Basically you're thumping your foot on the floor (that's what itamounts to)

so having some kind of a drum riser is a good idea,although I managed to alleviate this problem a LOT by puttingthe drum pedal and pad (ie pedal and pad asssembly) on a pillow.

It sounds like it should be horriblyunstable but the pedal settles into the pillow after a short whileand is quite playable.

It was a bit ungainly though so I stopped that.

I would think a drum riser with tennis balls as legs would work really well, and a much better solution - perhaps only for the pedals ?

Or maybe easier for the whole thing.

Maybe a Pallet would be best so that it doesn't become a soundboard in itself.

Hi-hat pedal :

If you tend to keep this pumping with the rhythm then thiswill need the same treatment as the bass drum pedal.

Drum pads : Even if you choose mesh ones, the rims will be solid so if you're practicing rimshots (or just hit the rim accidentally, whcih happens a lot on smaller pads)

then it's much the same issue as the rubber pads.

I guess you could set them at an angle

so you don't hit the rims though.

The actual sound of the kit is a secondary issue.

Headphones are the obvious choice as other suggest or if you play through speakers you at least have a choice over the volume, and how much thump there is in the ovarall bass tones (the bit that travels).

My neighbour plays a 5 string guitar and has headphone/amps set up so half the time I don't even know he's having a play.

You may need to investigate something like this.

Question: I'm a drummer and recently moved into an apartment with high ceilings and hardwood floors. I have a Roland TD-4. I've been researching for ways to be able to practice quietly without disturbing my neighbors.  I'm sure if I used all mesh heads that would be quieter than rubber heads. Also, a few mentioned creating a riser with tennis balls as legs to help deaden the noise.  Is there anyway that I can play an electric set in an apartment without spending a ton on soundproofing?

Electronic drums in apartment

There are a number of things you can do to prevent drum practice annoying the neighbors. These include hanging heavy curtains on the walls, placing the kit on a sandbox, installing a thick pile carpet, lining the walls with sand bags and purchasing an isolated drum riser. Obviously, the first thing to be done is play with headphones.

To avoid disturbing your neighbours there are a few measures you may want to take. Firstly, you should consider getting headphones and hanging a thick curtain on the walls of your practice room. Then, you may want to consider placing your drum kit on a riser, some floor tiles, a thick carpet or even some sand to deaden the sound further. If you have serious concerns, however, you may wish to speak with your landlord.

If you have serious concerns about sound-proofing, you may want to speak to your landlord.

You may want to consider placing a thick carpet, some floor tiles, a drum riser or even some sand under the drum kit.

You should definitely be using headphones in this situation.

You could use sand or sandbags to further insulate your practice room.

Hanging thick curtains on the walls is a good way of sound-proofing.


I usually warm-up with a slow-blues I found in a magazine years ago.

Here's a video .

Can't really notate more, because it's never the same after this.

It's pretty easy to change the drone to A for the second verse and then pop a B7 and do a lick to turn it around.

It's really hard to make your fingers slow down for this.

But it really sounds nice slow and sweet , too.

But it's so simple that the temptation to jazz it up can be irresistible.

Illustration made with MuseScore.

(Haven't figured out how to make the title smaller, yet.)

My favourite one because it really helps to warm up fingers.

Play the first bar and then simply go one string down.

Do this until you reach the last string.

Beginner here, I also warm up with blues, I am not sure about how to name what I play but it looks like that

(I copied the notes from a 12 bar progression): E|---------------- B|----------------

D|----25-26---48-- A|--26

I do it because my left hand needs to move vertically and horizontally

(which is the hardest for me right now).

music.stackexchange.com/users/3387/Learning is a mess

This is a good warm-up exercise to improve your finger dexterity on one string.

The jumps from the 4th finger to your 1st are particularly tough.

Follow the fingering guide above: 1 2 3 2 3 4 1 2 3 2 3 4E|--1-2-3-2-3-4-|-3-4-5-4-5-6-| ...

Thats my warmups (first similar to Craig Curtis's).

But they're little harder, and can be used also as an exercise, not only as warmup.

Second one is about right-hand picking, and holding barre-chords.

I usually warm up playing scales.

Sometimes I play a single major scale form in a cycle of fifths.

Other times I will just play through major and pentatonic scale forms in one key up and down the neck.

Then I usually just noodle around on some phrase or song with which I'm familiar.

Caveat:

I'm an amateur and have no sound reason for why this is good.

It just works for me.

In addition to the examples shown here, I would advise you to warmup without the guitar, stretching your hands, wrist and shoulders, but also and in my opinion more importantly, to warm DOWN after a big session of playing.

I used to hurt myself when I was a beginner, as my left wrist would go from "inside" flexion during hours to a sudden outside flexion.

The content of the exercise itself is not that important, and chromatisms are quite boring and frankly quasi-useless as a guitarist.

What is important is to start slow, simple, with some are of your guitar playing which is mastered.

It might be simple chords, it might be polyphonic tapping or tremolo, it depends on your personnal practice.

A good video description of hand stretching

I use arpeggios: major 7, minor 7, and dominant 7 in 5 positions (essentially CAGED).

Go through the circle of fifths, playing major 7ths in one of the 5 positions; repeat for other positions; repeat for minor 7 and dominant 7.

Practice with a metronome, and gradually increase speed (over weeks/months/years).

At the moment, I'm also working on tremolo picking, playing a scale using 4 sixteenth notes per degree of the scale (also, of course, with a metronome).

I saw some really good answers

and I agree with some of them.

My favorite warm up practice helps strengthen all my fret hand fingers, as well as providing coordination with pick hand and fret hand.

Starting on the low E string 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 then the A 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 then

the D 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 continue through all six strings and back up again.

Next move up one fret, so... 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 , then another fret 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 , all the way to 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 and back down 15 - 14 - 13 - 12.

This can be boring for your picking hand, so try all down strokes, or all up strokes, or alternate picking ( down - up - down - up ).

When I first learned this technique, I had a hard time getting clean sounding notes out of my pinkie ( since I used it so little ).

Then speeding up was tricky, but this exercise pays off!

One last thing I can recommend, is alternate the order your four fret fingers ascend and descend.

For example: ......2 - 3 - 4 - 5 then 3 - 4 - 5 - 2 then 4 - 5 - 2 - 3 last 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 This helps train each of your fret fingers to work independently and quickly.

Try it and you may find a fun new exercise.

This warm up exercise helps stretch your fretting hand.

I found a picture that explains http://www.fretjam.com/image-files/hand-stretch3.jpg Push as far as you can and use all three crooks of fingers.

Question: I do not generally warm up, but then I don't really stretch my playing as much as my ear when I practice. But I know I should.  What are some good exercises to do before I start getting into the details of working for speed, developing scales, etc.?

What are good warm-up exercises for guitarists?

Playing scales, simple chords, arpeggios and practicing with the metronome are all recommended warm-up exercises for guitarists. In addition, it is advisable to do some exercises for hands, wrists and shoulders before starting.

To warm up before playing guitar, any kind of playing could be acceptable. However, scales and arpeggios are normally a good start, and you may want to use a metronome to build up speed. Another thing you may want to consider is stretching without the guitar first before you start playing.

You could warm up simply by playing scales.

Any form of playing could be considered enough for a warm-up.

You could try playing arpeggios to warm up.

You might want to consider practising with a metronome to build up speed.

You may want to warm up without the guitar first, stretching your hands and fingers.


It actually goes back to the Medieval period when music that was not church music nor followed the church's rules was the devil's music.

Madrigals were considered the devil's music because they were mostly about sex.

Ending a piece on a minor chord was also forbidden which gave us the Piccardi third (raising the third of the final chord of a piece in a minor

so it cold end on a major).

The tritone was also banned.

In modern and American terms, the blues was considered the devil's music by the African American religious community at the turn of the 20th century because of song content and that it was tied to drinking and dancing.

This was true of jazz and carried over to rock and roll.

The associations with drinking, dancing and sex were the original reasons.

Voodoo New Orleans musicians didn't help the cause nor did the fears of middle American about their white kids listening to "black" music.

Then there was Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath....

The first thing that comes to mind is «backmasked» messages (i. e. hidden by the means of recording it backwards) with sinister and supposedly satanic contents: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_cul5.htm

The best example of such message is the classic passage from reversed «Stairway to Heaven»: "

All yours, here's to my sweet satan, The one who's little path would make me sad, who's power is fake.

He will give you, give you 666.

There was a little toolshed where he made us suffer, sad satan.

Listen to it: http://www.nauglefest.net/downloads/stairway_reverse.mp3

Replying to Michael Thibodeau: I would love to see any reference to non-church music being called the devil's music during the medieval period that cites medieval sources.

I've been working on medieval music history for quite some time and never seen any reference to any of this history.

The reference to the tritone being the devil's interval can't be traced any further back than the 1700s.

See F.J.Smith, "Some aspects of the tritone [...]: the non-emergence of the Diabolus in musica " Journal of Musicological Research , 1979 for a complete debunking of this false tradition.

The avoidance of the melodic tritone in medieval music was for melodic, not theological grounds.

The practice of using tritones in melodic writing was actually freer in the late Middle Ages than later periods, with sonorities such as G-E-Bb with G in the bass considered as consonant as G-Eb-Bb or G-E-B.

Overly-broad question that's dangerously close to off-topic, but I have to quote this famous song from a pioneer in Christian rock, Larry Norman (1947-2008).

With lyrics.

The title quote, "Why should the Devil have all the good music"?

has been attributed to none other than Martin Luther(1483-1546)

A key factor is that rock and roll made people move in ways that were not conducive to celibacy, ie they had fun concentrating on worldly things rather than spiritual.

Obviously this is the work of the devil. :-)

Nice screen grab, by the way.

Question: Historically, what evidence has been cited in support of the claim that Rock 'n' Roll is the music of Devil? This notion exists in the popular culture, fueled by  Footloose  and half-remembered grade-school history, that there was some form of official religious condemnation of the rock-n-roll form. What's the real scoop?  On a related subject, was the interval of the tritone, the diminished fifth, really considered Devilish in the past?

What is the history of considering Rock 'n' Roll to be "the Devil's music"?

The avoidance of the melodic tritone in medieval music was for melodic, not theological grounds. The reference to the tritone being the devil's interval can't be traced any further back than the 1700s. In modern and American terms, the blues was considered the devil's music by the African American religious community at the turn of the 20th century because of song content and that it was tied to drinking and dancing.

The association of rock 'n' roll with the Devil may in part be related to historical associations between the Devil and particular forms of music. However, it is also possible that it was more related to the association between rock 'n' roll and drinking, dancing and sex. If the tritone was considered 'the devil's interval', this was probably a recent concept as the tritone was originally objected to on melodic rather than theological grounds.

The association with rock 'n' roll being tagged as the Devil's music actually goes back to medieval times when non-church music was considered the Devil's.

If the tritone was considered the devil's interval, it was a relatively recent concept as the tritone was objected to on melodic rather than theological grounds.

Rock 'n' roll was generally considered the Devil's music because of its association with drinking, dancing and sex.


The basics for playing the violin on average takes about 8 years.

This would give you with a lot of practise and ensemble experience about the standard for a community orchestra which you could continue to play in with no lessons and just regular practise to maintain your standard.

On the basis that you can learn an instrument as an adult with lessons once every month this, would mean 12 lessons a year for roughly 8 years.

A basic violin wouldn't be good enough for all of the 8 years, so after about 4 years you would probably need to upgrade.

I would suggest that you start your lessons with a violin that you have hired.

The most important is to feel in your body if you have pain, tiredness somewhere.

Buy the violin you afford and ask more specific questions here.

Holding the bow can seem difficult in the beginning, finding the right position just having the bow in the hand (no violin)

some minutes can be very good.

You can think about relaxing one arm with relaxing the other, very often if you are focused/tense in one arm, then the back, neck and other arm will also get stiff.

I would recommend a shoulder-rest, easier to hold the violin in place.

And as a general principle, no strong grep anywhere, holding violin and bow should not require big muscle.

I usually tell my students they can record my violin classes, because often I say more things than they remember one week after.

By doing that they can listen again, between lessons and remember what they had to work with.

How many lessons depends on the teacher & you.

There is no number.

Ask questions here as you go so we can help.

The question is really subjective, but if you go to an expert teacher that understands the violin physics and ergonomics, he will be able to teach you the basic dos and don'ts withing even a year or two or even less, then you'll be able to play songs and others, obviously depending on your prior knowledge of music theory, your ear and intonation resolution, your talent, your physical status, and many other parameters.

As others have mentioned, it's very subjective and dependent upon a lot of things.

In any case, I would never really say that it takes X years to learn Y. One variable would be the style of music you want to play.

You didn't call it a fiddle, so I doubt you are talking about old time, bluegrass or country.

Classical or Jazz might take some time, at least if you want to meet other people's standards (which you shouldn't).

However, I can tell you, from personal experience, it shouldn't take 8 or 10 years to get the basics of violin down.

It also depends on your definition of "the basics."

However, in my opinion, starting out with any skill, believing that it'll take a decade to get the basics is a recipe for failure.

Really it's all about knowing how you learn, considering how those before you learned and acting accordingly.

A good teacher goes a long way as Shimmy mentioned too.

been playing for eight years, took basics for two, am now playing music that I feel is worth listening too.

I am seventy seven years old now.never give up

it gets better with age lol thanks.oh yes jigs,reels,waltzes, and nice slow old tunes.

This question is way too open ended.

So is the answer.

How long is a piece of string?

If one already has musical knowledge through playing another instrument or singing, the timescale will diminish greatly.

If one has a lesson a month, one will most likely NEVER get there.

If one has an investment in one's own instrument, one will feel more inclined to learn it.

If one practises for 2 hrs a day, one will get far more efficient than the one who practises 1 hr a day,etc.

,etc,

Playing the violin depends a lot on how good your ear is.

If you can play a guitar(without having to read music), you will find violin a lot easier, to say it takes 8 years is laughable, it all depends on your ear, your ability to learn, how much you practice, you can learn to read music quite quickly if you are serious, practice , practice, practice, no substitute.

Dont listen to àny other stupid advice, especially the first one, I am still laughing at that.

2 hours a day, 7 days a week, get some good books, within 8 weeks you will be playing tunes, dont be disheartened, keep practising, if it was easy it wouldnt be worth learning.

Question: I'd really like to learn the violin, however I'll just be able to muster up enough money to buy a cheap violin and a few lessons. How many lessons do you think I would need in order to avoid practicing bad habits and learn the basics, assuming I practice enough?

How many lessons are necessary to pick up the basics of violin with sufficient practice?

How long it will take someone to learn the violin is very subjective. There are a lot of variables, including the person's knowledge of music, the teacher's ability, the frequency of lessons/practice, how good the person's ear is and if they already read music.

The answer to this question is subjective and will depend on many variables. It will be particularly impacted by whether or not you can play another instrument already and how good your ear his. However, it could take between one and eight years to learn the basics well, and one lesson per month is probably not enough.

It could take anything between a year and eight years to learn the basics of violin.

The amount of time it will take to learn the basics will be greatly reduced if you can already play another instrument.

The answer will depend greatly on how good your ear is.

A lesson per month is probably not enough to make any meaningful progress.


To understand what an accidental is, you must first understand what a key signature is.

That is answered at: What is a key signature? ..

but briefly, a key signature is a set of markings telling you which notes to always play as sharps or flats.

For example, the key signature for F major consists of a ♭ in the B position, meaning "Whenever a B appears in this score, play B♭".

An accidental points out a note which is an exception to the key signature.

It is a note with a ♯, ♮, ♭ next to it, to say "although the key signature says otherwise, for this bar only, play it like this".

Accidentals are notes which don't usually occur in the key the piece of music is in.

For instance, if you're playing a piece in C major and there's a B flat, then this is an accidental note since B flat isn't in the scale of C major.

Accidentals are easy to spot in notation since they'll always have a sharp ♯, natural ♮, or flat ♭ sign in front of them.

In the key of C, the "accidental" notes are the black keys on your piano.

In any other key, the "accidental" notes are whatever notes that you need to play in the piece which are not in the key itself , and thus not in the key signature.

Don't forget also the (x) and the (bb).

Double sharps and double flats occasionally need to be used, to sharpen an already sharp (as in the written key signature) note, and vice versa.

E.g.

in Db, there is already a Bb in the key sig.

If one wanted to write a chord of Gbm; the third, normally a Bb, would need to be flattened again.

Thus it is written as Bbb or B double flat.

Yes I know lots of guitarists in particular would call it an A !!!

But technically it must be called a B note of some sort - hence Bbb.

These, I suppose, are actually the only accidentals that never get used as anything else.

Also, don't forget that after the next bar line following an accidental, all accidentals from the previous bar are cancelled.

It really bugs me that so many pieces of music put the cancelling natural, for example, in the next bar.

Totally pointless, yet seen in lots of piano exam pieces, especially at lower grades.

All it does is add extra superfluous marks to distract the player.

The twelve tones in any chromatic scale are divided into two groups: Solfeggio and Accidental In the Key of C,do-re-me-fa-so-la-te (called solfeggio) are played on the white keys,where as di-ri-fi-si and li (called accidentals) are played on the black keys

The entire tonal chromatic scale is: do-di-re-ri-me-fa-fi-so-si-la-li-te

In the Key of C the accidentals are C# - D# - F# - G# - A# Solfeggio

form the roots of "Natural Chords" represented by Roman Numerals I-ii-iii-IV-V-vi-vii Accidentals

form the roots of the "Flatted Chords" flatted II, flatted III, flatted V, flatted VI and flatted VII (all played as major triads as the roman numerals are all capitals)

Thus all 15 Chromatic Scales have the same tonal labels, which makes transposing from the Key of A (easiest for guitarist) to the Key of C (easiest for the pianist) extremely easy.

Instead of thinking A is transposed to C, think: A is a 1 in the key of A and C is a 1 in the key of C.

That is why learning tonal scales and their corresponding roman numeral labels is a must for writing and transposing.

I'm a self-taught song writer and have spent many years searching through music theory books and talking to professionals.

I have talked to many piano teachers who have had no clue that the accidentals have tonal names, nor do they understand the need for Roman Numeral designations.

"What's the Circle of Fifths?" is a favorite common response I get from piano teachers.

I guess if you only want to read sheet music, there is no need for music theory, but it has helped me fully understand what I truly love: music!

Question: Can any one please explain what is an accidental note? Do they have any rules to play accidental notes in a scale? I only have basic knowledge of keyboards.

What are Accidental Notes?

An accidental points out a note which is an exception to the key signature.  In the key of C, the "accidental" notes are the  black keys on your piano.

Accidental notes are notes that don't appear in the key that the piece of music is in. For example, in the key of C, the black keys on a piano are all accidental notes.

Accidental notes are notes which don't usually occur in the key of music that the piece is in.

In the key of C, for example, the black keys on the piano are all accidental notes.


Musescore is free as opposed to many other programs such as Sibelius or Finale.

However, it is still very good and can do almost everything that paid programs can do.

One of the input files accepted in Musescore is MIDI and it can output PDF among other formats.

However, as guidot said, it takes a human to do it right because a MIDI file does not contain all the information needed to create a complete score.

Blanks, such as key signatures, time signatures, ornaments, articulations, and enharmonics, must be filled in by guessing.

That's where a human operator comes in.

Your software, such as Musescore, must take the MIDI file and create a clean score with it.

Musescore does a very good job at this, but the blanks in the MIDI file must be filled in by guessing.

It takes a human operator to correctly fill these in, but having software to do the rough draft is helpful.

Once you have your software (such as Musescore), open the MIDI file.

Musescore will convert the MIDI to sheet music, but you will still have to correct things (such as those mentioned above).

If you have a good understanding of music, it shouldn't be too hard for most pieces.

Once you've tidied the score up, output it as a PDF and you're done.

Guitar pro does midi import and pdf export, so you should be able to obtain tabs and scores from it.

This is not quite a "conversion", since the midi file is on a much lower level than a score.

So while you will surely get some output, it is more than questionable, whether somebody can play from it without considerable editing.

As an example midi contains nothing about a key and so has to make wild guesses concerning accidentals, same for time signature, dotted notes, arpeggios may not be recognized as such but separate notes and many more issues.

So I'm afraid to state, that there is nothing to replace human (here: a musicians) brain for that task.

As @guidot said, nothing replaces human oversight.

But a good piece of software (I use Digital Performer, which is decidedly not free) can quantize the MIDI performance, which helps it render a more conventional-looking score.

But you will still have to clean it up.

If you are looking for a free solution, Tuxguitar can help.

It does have a midi input and a PDF output.

It will work on windows, linux, and mac.

However, you might have to do a bit of clean up; it won't know what key you are using or anything like that.

If you know what you want the score to look like, the score-writing programs already mentioned will help you do the job.

If the MIDI is configured as one string=

one channel

and you want guitar tab rather than staff notation

, you might even get some way towards automatic conversion!

The free software Lilypond comes with a tool called midi2ly , it converts midi-files to lilypond-files and lilypond outputs pdf-files by default.

But as many of the other answers already stated: "The real work starts when the conversion is done!"

I think many of the aspects are covered in the other answers

but I'll show a quick example how a score can look like directly after a midi import: $ midi2ly infile.midi -o outfile.ly$

lilypond outfile.ly

And here is a the finished score, witch apart from: typing the notes setting key and time signature needed to be completely remade.

Note: Lilypond is available for major distributions such as: Windows, Linux, macOS, FreeBSD a.o.

but it does not come with a classical graphical user interface (GUI).

Instead it is working on source files that can get created with a text editor and get compiled with the program more comparable to a TeX/LaTeX workflow.

There is editing software available such as Frescobaldi or software more gaining towards a GUI workflow such as Denemo .

MidiSoft Recording Session for Win 95 Running on WIN-XP.

(You can use Oracle VM VirtualBox to host WIN-XP on Linux, Win-10)

MidiSoft is out of business but there are copies of this program on the Internet.

Question: I have a couple of nice guitar midi files that I would like the scores for; is there any software out there that can do this sort of conversion, and output it as a PDF file?  Thanks

Transcribing a Standard MIDI File to sheet music

The score of a piece of music can be transcribed using Musescore, Tuxguitar, Lilypond, among others, which are free software. Alternatively, other programs such as Sibelius or Finale are proprietory.

There is a wide range of programmes that may be able to do this, such as Musescore, Guitar Pro, Lilypond or Frescobaldi.


There does exist what we call "rootless" voicings in harmony.

These are chords in which the root is implied by the upper harmonies.

Typically, the 3rd and the 7th are the primary indicators of chord quality, and the 5th is secondary.

Rootless voicings are most commonly used in settings where an instrument such as piano or guitar is providing harmonic support in an ensemble/group setting, and an instrument (usually bass) has already stated the root of the chord.

In composition, rootless voicings are utilized to keep the tonal center ambiguous and allow for the possibility of shifting the root of the chord underneath the harmony to create interest.

Here are some examples of rootless voicings: If you were to play the rootless voicings in the above picture without their root, the placement and use of the chord tones would imply the root.

Why does this work?

Implied Roots

As I said earlier, the 3rd and 7th give the strongest indicator of the chord quality, and the 5th & 9th are the usual secondary indicators.

With that in mind, chord quality can be determined without a root when the following tones exist within the chord: Major =

Maj.

3rd & Maj.

7th Minor =>

Min.

3rd & Min.

7th Minor Major =>

Min.

3rd & Maj.

7th Dominant =

Maj.

3rd & Min.

7th Diminished 7 =

Min.

3rd, Min.

5th, Dim.

(bb) 7 Half Diminished =

Min.

3rd, Min.

5th, Min.

7th Augmented Major =

Maj.

3rd, Sharp 5th, Maj.

7th Augmented Dominant =

Maj.

3rd, Sharp 5th, Min.

7th Experiment with playing these chords & intervals without the root first, and then with the root -- you will become more familiar with the idea of not relying upon the root itself to express the tonal center of the chord.

Good luck!

If some other instrument is playing the root, such as a bass, then that root note is in the chord that's being played by the whole band.

If you're talking about playing a chord on, say, guitar or keyboard, then without the root it will sound odd, as it's not really a chord, which traditionally has 3 notes minimum (guitarists will disagree and talk about a '5 chord').

Don't forget, though, that chords may have more than 3 notes :

let's take Cmaj7.

When it's played without the root C , we're left with

E-B-G. This happens to constitute an E minor, which is not, obviously, the same chord as the C major.

Let's take a G7 chord - G-B-D-F.Sounds, funnily enough, like a dominant 7th.

Take the root G away, and we have B-D-F, which is a minor flat 5 chord - different.

In context, they may or may not sound similar but the moment the bass puts in the expected root, it's G7.

To answer the question, it's used, and is called C (no root)

I've not come across it often, but generally, someone else will be putting in the missing note.

It's important that a chord contain the root of the chord , but not necessarily the root of the underlying scale.

A G Major chord played as part of the C Major scale will not contain the note

C. Occasionally, you don't need to include the root of the chord either.

Particularly, if the note is covered by another instrument (or vocals) then the guitar part (or other harmony instrument, like keys) may omit the note.

A C Major chord with no root would be notated "C (no root)" or "C Maj (no root)".

Technically, what remains is a dyad (E and G) which some consider to be an incomplete chord.

But depending on the context, this dyad can serve the function of the full chord, and so it's appropriate to designate it a chord.

Yes, it is possible to lop off notes.

Practical : for Major chords, play the 3, 5, and 6 of the chord, alternative : play the 5, 6, and 1 (root).

You will hear that these same notes "become" the 5, flat 7, and 1, - alternative : flat 7, 1, and 3 of the Relative Minor.

This is not the only way to take off notes, but it is a practical way of experimenting.

As an example for rootless chords used in a "standard" situation, accordions with just 3 chord button rows (either because they only have 5 rows altogether, or because they have 3 instead of 2 bass rows) have a "joint" major seventh and diminuished chord row: instead of C-E-Bb and C-A-Eb (the seventh chords are generally missing the fifth, so this is c7 and cdim)

they have just G-Bb-E which serves as both c7 and gdim (the octave of the chord notes is unspecific).

So for a typical Oom-pah accompaniment ofC-c-G-c-G-g7-D-g7

the "g7" will actually consist of D-F-B. Most players of accordions with just three chord rows (typical for French and Russian accordions) are not aware that their seventh chords are missing the root note and are actually diminuished chords (without fifth).

Particularly since the chords are usually spelled as c7 et al and are in the same location as a c7 would be when having four chord rows.

And the effect is effectively indistinguishable from "true" seventh chords since the Oom-pah pattern will provide for root and fifth presence regardless of which of the two may actually be missing in the chords.

You can certainly IMPLY a chord without including its root.

Look at Bach's 2-part inventions.

Plenty of harmony is clearly implied with just two notes.

Context can make an implication pretty solid.

If it looks like a duck, hangs around with other ducks and goes 'Quack', chances are it's a duck.

But unless all notes are included, we can't definitely state

it IS that chord.

(Let's not get tied up in special cases like the 3rd not existing in an 11th chord.

Unless it's a #11

the chord's very likely a sus4 or a F/G shape anyway.)

Question: While I understand that it is very important to include the root note in a chord, is it required?   Let's say I'm in C Major, and I want to play a I chord. Do I need to include C in order for it to be considered a I chord? Or is the chord progression enough to imply that the chord I'm trying to play is a I chord?  Additionally, if I can have such a chord, what is it called, or how is it notated?

Does a chord need to include its root?

It's important that a chord contain the root  of the chord , but not necessarily the root of the underlying scale. If the note is covered by another instrument (or vocals) then the guitar part (or other  harmony  instrument, like keys) may omit the note. There does exist what is called "rootless" voicings in harmony.

It is generally considered acceptable to omit the root note in chords and these are known as rootless voicings. However, some people would argue that this can't be done. Often, if an instrument omits a root note from a chord, it's because the root is being played by another instrument.

It is generally considered acceptable to omit the root note in chord voicings.

Normally, if the root note is omitted by an instrument, it is because it is being played by another instrument.

Some people would say that it is important to include the root note.

A chord without a root note is known as a "rootless voicing".


It doesn't make sense to me either, but it seems it's a valid convention, according to Wikipedia...

I suppose it's only valid for measures of 4/4 or less; it would definitely look bad on 5/4, 7/4, etc.

I would say the convention is as you say, but in modern music some composers write the "real" length of the bar in pauses.

When so it has to do with sight seeing ("à vista")

reading, to make it easier to count empty bars and have a visual representation for the swing/rhythm.

So, yes, the convention is so for most cases.

Found this on wikipedia (with references to music theory books:

The AB Guide to Music Theory & Music Notation: A Manual of Modern Practice):

When an entire bar is devoid of notes, a whole (semibreve) rest is used, regardless of the actual time signature.

The only exceptions are for a 4/2 time signature (four half notes per bar), when a double whole rest is typically used for a bar's rest, and for time signatures shorter than 3/16, when a rest of the actual measure length would be used.

Note, however, that a semibreve rest is placed at the beginning of the bar, where a semibreve note would go.

A whole bar rest, which uses the same symbol as the semibreve rest, is centered in the bar.

Adding to my comment above, in 5/4 for instance, the piece may have a 3-2 feel, if so, a dotted minim and minim rest cover it nicely.

In classic music theory when you have a full bar of rest you use the semi breve rest regardless of what time signature you are in.

This is to aid in reading the rest.

Unlike notes the grouping of rest always aims to use as few rest as possible in attempt to not make reading the score unnecessarily difficult.

If you are playing in a symphony and you have to sight read 40 - 50 pages of music in a night

you are definitely going to do it easier when you have one rest indicating a full bar of rests.

Question: Obviously for 3 and 4/4 you use the respective semebreve or dotted minim,  but what about 7/8, 9/8 and 15/16?  I heard the convention is to just use a semibreve,  but that doesn't make sense to me over using tied notes.

What's the correct notation for a full bar note or rest in non-common time?

When an entire bar is devoid of notes, a whole (semibreve) rest is used, regardless of the actual time signature.  In modern music some composers write the "real" length of the bar in pauses. According to Wikipedia, the convention is to use the semibreve.

Yes, the convention is such situations is to simply use a semibreve rest to represent a whole-bar rest.


In addition the to answers already made, you should be aware that using the algorithmic-generated chord names can be "musically inaccurate" in the context of an harmonic analysis.

Depending of the context, you can have for instance BDF ("B dim") play the role of GDBF ("G Major 7").

If it's resolving to a C Major, you'll want to see BDF as a rootless dominant 7, not as a B diminished triad.

Rootless voicings is only an example : a software will have a difficult time with these little nice "implicit/ambiguous" things that make music an art :)

Perhaps you can contact the developer of "Chords"...

the android app that is almost, ...

almost...

all anyone ever needs in chord naming, inversions, locations on the fretboard etc. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rabugentom.chord&hl=en

A while back I worked on a Python module that performs similar tasks.

Take a look at the –triadType flag.

Lilypond is open source and has the ability to give chord names from tones.

So it must be somewhere in the code base.

First issue would be deciding what the root note is, otherwise as kurto says you'll get several answers for one set of note letters.

Would the order of the letters matter?

Maybe you could adopt a rule that the first letter is always the root ?

Assuming you tackle that somehow (or just accept several answers)

, you could ...

Assign a number to each letter (presumably you're accepting sharps and flats too?)

and use that to calculate the interval between the notes, in semitones eg what we calla 4th = from A to D is actually 5 semitones.

You could then use the intervals to match a set of known chord patterns against the root note: C E G as in your example, in semitones = 1-4-7 =

[rootnote] major =

the relative pattern for a major triad.

C

Eb G = 1-3-7 = pattern for minor chord.

1-4-7-10 = Cmaj 7

Each time you're just reporting the root note with a comment about how the rest of the notes are arranged.

The limitation would be where a chord is percieved but the root note is missing - but that could be interpreted as some other chord anyway.

The more pattern templates you identify, the better it'll become

but you only need to define them relative to a root note in semitone numbers.

If somenthing fits noneof the patterns (perhaps you haven't set one up for chord A4) then you just write the return the root note with extra note number (not semitone number).

So you need a way to convert all letters (sharps and flats) to numbers =

a lookup table / associative array a way to identify the root note a way to identify the intervals of all letters from the root note = turn into numbers and subtract the root note number.

Modulus by 13 to keep it within 1 octave (or not if you want to get more advanced and handle negative intervals, for notes beneath the root note) a way to define pattern templates for known chords, with name text associated a way to compare semitone numbers to patterns (= an array comparison) a way to turn semitone intervals into note numbers (eg 5 semitones =

4th note on scale) so that you can return things like A4 If you wanted to return all possibilities for a set of notes

then you could return the result for your routine, using each note in the chord as the root, in turn.

I'm thinking on my feet here

but I think that's how I'd go about it.

Question: I'm searching for chord recognition algorithms that will assign a chord name(s) to a group of notes, and related literature.   Sometimes known as reverse chord identification, where you feed notes to the algorithm, and it will produce a list of possible names.   An example: If we give the algorithm the notes C, E, G, the algorithm should name that group of notes as "C major triad  in root position ".

Looking for letter-based chord identification algorithms, and related literature

Lilypond is open source and has the ability to give chord names from tones.

Lilypond might be suitable software to perform this task.


I'm 24 and I started learning piano last year.

It's a fantastic thing to start learning a new skill, whatever age.

Truth is though, unless you're in severe trouble your average life expectancy is about 80+ years now.

Meaning you have at least half a century to learn to play.

It takes about 5 years

I'd say to get to a really good level,

So I reckon you've got time

Playing piano is good for your mental health, your IQ, your concentration and a whole host of other things.

It's worth the time you put in!

On a personal note, It's improved my life in ways beyond the keyboard!

My dad has always played woodwind instruments by ear -- sax, clarinet, flute.

He took a piccolo along when he went to war in Vietnam.

He started learning to play the keyboard and read music in his 60's!

He loves it and plays for hours each day.

Every time I talk to him

he's telling me about what song he's working on and what new digital instruments he has or what new version of Pro Tools he has installed.

He also wasn't much of a computer guy, but owns several Macs now and has taught himself a lot about using a computer so he can record his music.

You're only 27?

That's way too young to even be considering the question of it being too late for you to start something new.

Go for it!

What have you got to loose?

You've probably heard the phrase 'it's never too late'.

It's true !

Grab the opportunity before arthritis gets a hold !

Decide how you want to go -

either just mess about initially or get a teacher.

You may decide you need to read music-

you may not.

There's a lot spouted out there about how important reading is - you have to decide -

but I believe it would have held certain musicians back.

(Others, though, rely totally on this skill).

Go for it.

If, later, you realise it's not working, then stop, but till you try, you'll never know.

After all, as stated, you have moved on from video games - I guess.

Unfortunately, the older we get, the less time seems to be available to us.

Make the effort.

Maths and music do happen to go well together, so you're in with a chance !

Of course you still have chances!I started piano at 30, with no musical education at all, and I don't regret it one second.

If you are motivated, you will enjoy yourself no matter what.

Starting late

(if you consider mid 20s late...) has some advantages : you can transfer the experience you had in life and in work.

You know yourself better, you know what works for you in terms of goal setting, time management, learning styles... Harmony and counterpoint have a lot in common with maths.

However, if you start back from scratch, this will mean work.

Maybe not the best way to take a break from the thesis.

I honestly think that starting out late limits you potential.

I don't mean to discourage you, but I think the answers seem to too optimistic to me.

My case is pretty similar to yours: I had some lessons as a kid, after that I still played "with" my keyboard (not "on" because it was more like a toy to me), experiment with it, try to play by ear...

but it didn't get me anywhere.

Lessons where boring and made no sense to me, and learning alone felt impossible; so I soon got bored with it.

When I started college, I was listening to a lot of music, so I got excited and bought a guitar.

I was really committed to learning music, and I started reading theory, watching video lessons, and my friend taught me some stuff...

I learned a lot in a very short period of time, but two to three years later

, I hit a wall.

I was an ok player, but my progress kept slowing down.

I'm only 23

but I feel like my brain is too old to learn any more music.

I think learning music is like learning a new language, and the younger

you are the likelier you are to become proficient.

Sure you can learn enough to understand it, but you won't be writing books and articles in it.

It's NEVER too late to learn an instrument.

Making music is not something that depends on your age.

What i learned is, that the ONLY thing that matters making music is to have fun, nothing else!

So if you like to play again, just do it, no matter what your age is or other people say!

Question: I had a few keyboard lessons when I was around 12 years old. At that time I used to have a Yamaha psr 530 , a decent one for beginner . But back then, I loved to play video games rather than to learn keyboard, and also spent time to study math ^_^. The results, 15 years later, I am 27 , currently in a math PhD program, but completely forget how to play music. Is this to late now or I still have a chance to do it ?

Is It too late to start learning keyboard again?

It's  NEVER  too late to learn an instrument. Making music is not something that depends on your age. However, some ppeople say that starting late limits your potential.

It is generally accepted that it is never too late to start learning an instrument. However, starting late in life might limit your potential.

It is generally considered that it is never too late to start learning an instrument.

It might be the case that starting to learn an instrument late may limit your potential.


This is more clear when you think of it in terms of the length of the string.

Ignoring for a second that strings need to be a minimum length in order to vibrate, we can produce a full octave on the first half of any length of string.

Open for the "base" note, midpoint for the octave, one third of the way up for the fifth, etc.

So on a guitar you have the first half of the string to make up an octave.

Then on the second half, you have another half of that (a quarter) to make up the next octave.

Then another half of a half of a half (eighth) to make the next octave.

Each time, you only have half the space for the octave.

Thus, each fret has to be half the size of the fret an octave lower.

This mirrors my comment above: While maintaining frequency ratios, the absolute frequency differences changes by a factor of 2, and that is represented in the physical frets as well.

Because frequency with regard to pitch is exponential, not linear.

Exponential (frequency doubles for each octave -- each higher octave fits perfectly into the lower one with the least possible interference -- 2:1 ratio):

A3: 220hzA4: 440hzA5: 880hz Linear (same value added to each successive frequency, making the top note a 3:2 ratio with the previous -- much more interference than an octave):

A3 : 220hz A4 :

440hz'A5': 660hz --

**nope

In reality, this 660hz would be a just intonation fifth above A4, or E5.

The frets are getting arithmetically closer together (their absolute distance decreases).

But they are not getting geometrically closer, in terms of their distance from the bridge.

If you take the distance from the bridge to any fret (call that X) and also the distance from the bridge to the next higher lower (call that Y), then the ratio X/Y is the same whether or not X and Y are frets 2 or 1, or frets 20 and 19.

This ratio produces the frequency ratio that corresponds to the (equal temperament) semitone.

It is 2 1/12 , or about 1.0595.

(The two denotes that frequency doubles per octave, and the 1/12 indicates one half-step out of a potential twelve in an octave.)

Fret 19 is 1.0595 times farther away from the bridge than fret 20.

Fret 1 is 1.0595 times farther away from the bridge than fret 2.

This 1.0595 ratio is also the frequency ratio.

If you know the frequency of some given note, like A = 440

Hz, you can figure out what is the frequency of A#, one semitone higher.

Just multiply 440 x 1.0595 = 466.18.

The A# above the 440A has a frequency of about 466.2.

There are 12 semitones in an octave.

If we multiply a number by 1.0595 and do that 11 more times, we will get about twice the original number.

You can try this on your calculator.

Type 1 X 1.0595.

Then hit the = key 12 times.

You should get a number very close to 2.

For anyone interested the common ratio between the frets would be the twelfth root of 2.

Interestingly, all the answers are completely missing the point.

Everyone brings up the exponential increase of frequency as the reason ("you double the frequency for each octave"), but that is a red herring.

Even if the frequencies of consecutive pitches increased linearly, the higher note frets would still be closer together.

The actual reason why this happens is because the length of the vibrating string is inversely proportional to the frequency of the sound it produces .

This very simple physical explanation is the answer to the question.

Given two "consecutive" frequencies f1 and f2, the distance between the two frets is proportional to (1/f1-1/f2) or (f2-f1)/ (f1*f2) .

So even if (f2-f1) were constant (i.e., frequencies increase linearly) or outright increasing , the denominator (f1*f2)

still increases very fast as f1 and f2 go higher, which means that no matter what formula you pick for the frequencies, the distance between frets will get smaller.

Question: Why do spaces between guitar frets get smaller as the notes get higher?

Why do frets get closer as the notes get higher?

The actual reason why guitar frets get smaller as the notes get higher is because  the length of the vibrating string is inversely proportional to the frequency of the sound it produces .

This happens for two reasons. Firstly, frequency is exponential with respect to pitch rather than linear. Secondly, frequency is inversely proportional to the legnth of the string.

The reason this happens is because frequency in relation to pitch is exponential, not linear.

This reason this happens is because frequency is inversely proportional to the length of the string.


It's just a name: it used to be based on four bars, which probably would comprise one set of chord changes (eg doowop, I vi IV V), but could just as easily be two or eight bars.

It's like calling a song's bridge a 'middle eight', even though the number of bars may be different.

The Beatles always called their bridges 'middle eights'.

In swing setups such (e.g. tenor sax battles), it is not uncommon so see "trades" of varying (typically decreasing)

length : trade 16, then trade 8, trade 4 and sometimes even trade 2 then

trade 1, each time building up the tension.

Things could also end in both musicians improvising simultaneously.

Nice example from Robert Altman's Kansas City: As for the reason behind 4 bars, I think it comes from the structure of the typical 32 bar form AABA, in which the 8 bars of A are often divided in 4 bars (tension / question) often ending in half cadence (V7) + four bars (relief / answer) ending in IMaj7.

This means having 4 bar solo by one musician followed by for bars by another is quite natural.

"Trading twos" is definitely a phrase people use. "Trading eights" might be.

More generally, you can call it "trading licks".

8 bars is long enough to be thought of as a whole solo.

Get any longer than this and you're not really "trading" any more; you're just taking it in turns to solo.

When I say "trading", I mean that you base your lick on whatever the player before you played.

Generally it'll be even numbers, 2, 4 , 8 as a 'line' of a song tends to be that long, so phrasing sounds more balanced.

It follows from songs usually being 8, 12, 16 or occasionally 24 bars long.

Never heard in a band "Let's trade 7s."

Although that could be interesting.

Both to play and listen to...

There are great answers already here, but perhaps the most important consideration is making sure no one gets cut short when the trading is over.

Consider a 12-bar blues.

It wouldn't really work for the soloists to trade off every 8 bars, because whoever goes second in soloing would only be halfway through his/her turn when the 12-bar form ended.

(In particular, the first soloist would take bars 1-8, and the second soloist would take bars 9-12 followed by bars 1-4.)

Spilling over like

that can undermine the listener's sense of the form itself.

Our ears generally expect to hear the soloist change at the very top/beginning of the form.

If that doesn't happen, it feels uneasy, and we might get the feeling that we don't actually know where the top of the form is.

Jazz songs very frequently use 12-bar forms, 16-bar forms, or 32-bar forms.

Letting the soloists trade off every 4 bars is great because all of those forms are evenly divisible by 4.

Thus no soloist's turn will be interrupted by the end of the form.

Trading 2 bars at a time is also common, and this frequently comes near the end of the trading, after having spent some time trading 4 bars.

Trading 8 bars is also pretty common, although only if the entire song has an integer multiple of 8 bars.

In most tunes, four bars is the smallest unit you will find a complete phrase, musical idea, or melody.

Although you will often see a complete chorus or bridge or A section of the tune in eight as well, but youll never see it in two because two bars is too short to express a complete musical idea.

Question: I've run across the idea of "trading fours" when playing in (and listening to) jazz groups; i.e. where two or more musicians take it in turns to play four bar licks or solos. I understand that it can encourage creative interaction between musicians.  However, I was wondering why it seems to be specifically  four  bars? Would trading twos or eights (for example) be less effective?

Why do jamming musicians "trade fours" (rather than any other number)?

Trading Fours is just a name: it used to be based on four bars, which probably would comprise one set of chord changes (eg doowop, I vi IV V), but could just as easily be two or eight bars. It follows from songs usually being 8, 12, 16 or occasionally 24  bars long. Trading 2 bars at a time is also common, and this frequently comes near the end of the trading, after having spent some time trading 4 bars. Trading 8 bars is also pretty common, although only if the entire song has an integer multiple of 8 bars.

In reality, this could be just a musical term and the actual trade may not be strictly four bars. However, the term "trading fours" originates from the fact that four bars or a multple of four is normally the length of a complete phrase or melody. "Trading eights or "trading twos" is certainly possible, but "trading twos" is less likely since it's quite a short length of time to express a complete musical idea.

It might be that this is just a term, but the reality is that there is no need for the trade to literally be four bars.

This relates to songs usually being 8, 12, 16 or 24 bars long.

In most tunes, four bars is the shortest section that contains a complete phrase or melody.

Trading 2s or trading 8s can indeed happen.

Trading 2s might be less common because it is too short ot express a complete musical idea.


Technically, this is less about form and more about orchestration .

People can use instruments to denote a shift or division or a new section in the piece, though they don't have to.

Orchestration is the art of timbre.

When instruments enter one at a time, their entrances are described as "staggered".

The fact that the instruments enter halfway through the piece is an orchestrational one.

Canons and Rounds do not apply in this context if the staggered voices do not also enter through imitation as well.

Development , or buildup?

Crescendo is when the music gets louder.

Development is nearer to what you ask.

Though this technique does occur in "composed" music - Ravel's "Bolero" and (in reverse)

Haydn's "Farewell" symphony

- it's more typical of music "constructed" in a sequencer.

Because a sequencer makes it easy to work in this way

- set up a drum loop, add a bass, add a guitar

- you're right

, we hear this done far too often!

I don't think there's an accepted term for it.

"Layering" perhaps.

The closest term I found for this was a canon .

Not exactly the same, but pretty close.

A canon pretty much when one voice has the melody and some duration later another voice comes in playing the same melody and then the pattern continues for more voices.

A round is also a type of canon that may be slightly closer to what you are thinking of.

I think you can call this a " Mannheim Crescendo ".

I also have a teacher who use a french expression to name it, a "crescendo d'orchestre", but I don't find sources for this denomination.

I don't think you'll find an exact term for this, but what you are referring to is "texture."

In the type of piece you describe, the texture starts "thin" and then layers or builds to a "dense" texture.

For the reverse(at the end of the piece)

you could describe the texture as "thinning out" or "layering out.

" If there is one instrument, the texture is monophonic, two is biphonic, and 3 or more polyphonic.

More info: texture on Wikipedia.

Question: Many songs will start with only a few number of instruments, and after a specified amount of time has passed a new instrument is added, and this is repeated until all instruments for the song are playing its rhythms. Sometimes this is also done when finishing the song, but in reverse order.  Does this style of opening a piece has a name?

What is it called when a song starts with few instruments, and gradually adds one at a time?

When instruments enter one at a time, their entrances are described as "staggered".  Other suggestions for the same event are development, canon and Mannheim Crescendo. Many believe there is no exact term.

It is possible that there is no accepted term for this, but some suggestions include "development", "canon" or "Mannheim Crescendo".

There are a number of different terms for this, such as "development", canon" or "Mannheim Crescendo".

It is unclear that there is an accepted term for this.


Walking away from something and letting it "marinade" is a learning technique known as incubation .

When conscious, incubation occurs in the sub-conscious mind where your brain will continue to essentially run series of diagnostic tests addressing the problem it has been presented with.

When sleeping, incubation occurs in the unconscious mind, and some people might even have a dream about the problem they are dealing with.

This has been shown in mice wherein a given mouse was presented with a complicated maze.

When sleeping, electrodes attached to the mouse's brain illustrated the mouse running through the maze over and over, assimilated learned information.

The next day, the mouse was able to make it through the maze with little problem.

Incubation also has the added benefit allowing the person to approach the problem with a fresh perspective.

Typically, extended breaks from an instrument are not encouraged as a musician could lose a lot of fine motor-control and stamina.

That said, extended breaks can be beneficial.

For example, they could give a musician ample time to forget their bad playing / practice habits as well as renewing their enthusiasm and vigor for playing.

Small breaks (a few hours) are good and should be done often when practicing.

Long, extended breaks (a week or more) should not be done frequently at all and in fact used sparingly.

N.B. Mentally practicing is also quite beneficial.

If taking a break from your instrument, taking a practice session to mentally rehearse your music can aide in your practice as well.

Could be several things.

Certainly it takes time for repetitive practice elements to become part of "muscle memory," the name given to motions which no longer require the conscious portion of the brain to process.

Sometimes we just get sick of a song, or phrase, or technique, and need to take a deep breath (lasting days :-) )

and let our attitude reset itself.

I am a little skeptical that you can walk away for more than a week and be able to play with the speed, accuracy, and endurance you had before.

Certainly no professional-level musician would consider that possible; they generally find missing even a few days can affect their feeling of comfort/capability.

Granted for us hackers with a day job (:-) )

it's not as critical.

It can depend on a variety of things.

Often times, people don't practice as best they could, and actually end up wearing themselves out while trying to learn something.

If you wear yourself out everyday, without giving yourself time to rest, you will play a certain way.

After a while, it will be "normal" for you to play in this strained state.

So you may feel like you're playing better because when you take time off, you're giving your muscles time to heal.

It also depends on your playing level.

Obsession at a young-professional level can become a problem, and you may feel like you're playing better after a break, because you've forgotten all the little things you were obsessing about to your own detriment.

A lot of professionals do regularly take a week or two off from their instrument, to fully recharge.

It can be a very taxing activity on your muscles, depending on what instrument you play.

When improvising a solo or just messing about on guitar, I too find that I'm better at it and more imaginative when I've left the guitar alone for a while, perhaps a few days/a week.

The dexterity will be slightly diminished but I find that my choice of what to play is more inspired.

There's an optimum amount of time to break though - too short and theres no difference, too long and the connection with the instrumend diminishes.

I think best for me is about 4 days, but that's probably a personal thing.

I think what's happening is the 'rut' of familiar runs and riffs work their way from muscle memory back into my 'brain memory'

(ie, my set of ideas for that moment) and becomes "it's just what I do", until I break that habit and allow myself to forget it for a while.

Then I'm more open to a whole new set of riffs etc, and generally what feels to me like more interesting stuff.

I searched out this topic to see if it is indeed a labeled phenomenon.

I don't necessarily walk away from the instrument, but from some new, difficult pieces.

When I come back to them a week or two later, several of my previous "sticking" places in the music have miraculously worked themselves out.

I honestly believe it has something to do with hearing how it should be played in our head rather than hearing the "raw" version.

So perhaps our brains adjust the "raw" version into how it is supposed to sound while we sleep.

I don't know, but it is a little freaky!

Great, but freaky at the same time!

I have noticed this too.

It's true for other things as well such as playing video games.

I think that when you take a break from something and come back later, your brain doesn't over-analyze as much as it did before.

When you're practicing something extensively, the brain is faced with many memories of things that worked and those that didn't.

During this time, there would be constant switching between these various little changes, which results in average performance.

But if you take a break and come back, your brain doesn't remember the little failures and will only work with what if knows works.

Another things that I noticed is that after I night of drinking alcohol, I notice that I perform better at tasks like music and video games.

This effect lasts for 2 days, and it decays completely by the third day.

Probably this is related as well.

This is a thing.

It’s happened to me a few times now.

Just small breaks, 3-4 days, and I pick up and play things I never could before.

I never remember if I have had a dream but it makes sense to me that I might subconsciously rerun the things I have learnt and it becomes muscle memory without me realizing.

Question: Sometimes as a musician, I find myself in a rut. My solution is to simply put my instrument down and walk away from it for a few weeks, sometimes even a month, and when I come back I'm better than when I was practicing every day.  I have my theories, that it gives my brain a chance to subconsciously process what I'd been learning, but I have nothing more than a guess.  Why does taking an extended break sometimes help?

Why does taking an extended break sometimes help?

There may be many reasons why taking an extended break helps a musician. Obsession at a young-professional level can become a problem, and you may feel like you're playing better after a break, because you've forgotten all the little things you were obsessing about to your own detriment.  Often times, people don't practice as best they could, and actually end up wearing themselves out while trying to learn something. When you take a break from something and come back later, your brain doesn't over-analyze as much as it did before.

This could depend on a variety of factors but the real answer is unclear. By taking a break, it's possible that you will be less inclined to over-analyse your performance and therefore your perception of your own performance will improve. Similarly, practising a lot will wear you out, so you are likely to be fresher after a break. Another possible reason is that a break will give you a chance to mentally rehearse the piece rather than just physically.

This could depend on a variety of factors.

Taking a break from practice can help you to mentally rehearse what you were practising.

Sometimes, over practising can mean that you simply wear yourself out.

By taking a break, it's possible that you stop over-analysing things and your perception of your performance improves.


Sounds to me like he's pushing his voice a lot harder to get over the band volume.

In an acoustic situation, he's singing in a more relaxed way, but put all the instruments in, at a volume which is probably unnecessary anyway, and the sing becomes more of a shout.

By turning up his mic a balance will partially be restored, (but his ears will still tell him to sing as loudly as possible), but surely it's better to get that back by turning the instruments down.

Give it a try - there's nothing to lose - except your hearing if that volume is up.

Craig, the other answers all address the possibility that his "singing nowhere near as good" is because he's getting drowned out by the other band members.

There's another possiblity as well.

If he sings very well by himself, accompanying himself, that doesn't necessarily translate into singing well with other people who are accompanying him.

It's a different skill, and needs to be learned.

You can't be quite as free with the beat if everyone has to stick together.

So if the problem is that he's straining his voice, then yes, you need to work on the mix.

However, if the problem is that everything sounds sloppy, then you all need to work together to get a tighter sound.

I don't mean that he has to get rigid to stay on the beat, that doesn't sound good either.

But there's a kind of tapping into each others ideas that goes on when a band is really playing well together.

Each person has to get to know each other's style, and each person has to value the contribution of every other band member as much as his own.

Sometimes that's a problem for prima-donna type lead singers.

I know this because I've been one myself before. :)

I agree with Tim.

A lot of bands tend to crank up their instruments way too loudly which is unfortunate.

Everybody wants to be heard.

Vocals are crucial for a vocal based band and the band should really work on mixing.

Things you can do are make sure that the Vocalist can be heard clearly over all of the other instruments, especially the lead guitar and drums!

Controlling the sound of drums is difficult especially if there are no mics for the drums.

Band placement plays a role in this case.

However, the volumes of all of the other instruments is totally controllable.

You might also want to consider getting some monitors so that the band members can actually hear themselves.

If you're playing with just the speakers that the audience hears it can be pretty hard to hear yourself clearly.

So my suggestions are monitors and turn the vocalist up and the instruments down!

As I said before, in a vocal based band, the vocals are crucial.

People want to hear and understand the singer.

"A violin player plays very nice when he is playing by himself.

If he is bowing while another player does the fingering, he's not half as good.

"A dancer is dancing the steps of some figure very well by himself.

When he is dancing with another...

" A dancing pair is two beings moving with a common center of gravity and a common purpose.

It takes a lot of practice to arrive there: the end result is one of both doing their part confidently without being hampered by any apparent consideration for the other getting in the away.

In a similar vein, it takes a lot of practice for a band to play as one in a particular configuration.

It will also have taken a lot of time for your singer before his guitar playing and his singing formed one organic unit.

Now he has managed to have the whole performance under his single control.

Which is exactly what is not his job in a band setting.

Tim's answer coveres the vocal straining

/ hearinign yourself issue, but other factors I have noticed myself : Are the band in tune?

The vocalist doen'st stand a chnace if someone is out of tune with the rest.

Which note should he/

she settle on ?

Which instruments are too loud ?

My band has been using a new bassist for the last year as our usual guy got very ill.

The new fella's bass is a 6 string thingy which goes so low

it makes your buttocks rattle, and on more usual bass notes it's quite all-encompassing, even though not massively loud.

I can hear that I'm singing quite clearly, but it's hard to pick a note out.

A bit of reverb/echo on the vocals helps enormously.

It needs to be in the folback monitors so the vocalist can hear it.

I'm not sure of the science behind that

but it does seem to work.

Question: The singer in my band can sing very well. When he is singing by himself playing an acoustic guitar he sounds great. However when put into a situation where he is singing with a full band (ie: studio or rehearsal), his singing is nowhere near as good.  Are there any tricks for him to perform better as a singer when playing with other people?

How to sing better in a band situation?

In a band situation, the singer needs to be heard over the instruments or they will be straining their voice in an attempt to be heard. Using a monitor and turning the voice up and the instruments down can usually solve the problem.

It's possible that the vocalist is struggling to be heard. Ways around this would include turning down other instruments or turning down the vocals. Similarly, you could consider getting some monitors so that the vocalist can hear themselves properly.

It's possible that the vocalist is straining to be heard, so you should turn down other instruments or turn up the vocals.

You might want to get some monitors so that the vocalist can hear themselves properly.


I'm guessing this is from guitar tab, with 6 lines.

The 6/8 really means 2 beats per bar, made up with 3 triplet quavers (1/8 notes).

This will give each bar only 2 beats, despite numbers like 6 and 8.The tempo mark found above tells how many b.p.m.

(beats per minute)

the tune should be played at, In this case, 107.

A metronome can be set to this, and every two clicks will represent a full bar.

This information is very basic, and could have been found with a few second's looking on thousands of websites.

Guitar tab will rarely have the time signature, so maybe this is drum music.

The time sig.

will always be present on staves with 'proper' music.

The 107 defines the tempo(speed) of the song.

If you see a metronome, you'll see that you can determine the speed.

The speed of the specific song is 107 bpm (beats per minute).

Also, you can see that the duration of the note is a quarter.

That means that if you set your metronome at 107 bpm, every tic would be a quarter.

So, the correct name for this would be '107 crotchet (or quarter) per minutes' The 6/8 is the time signature of the song.

It determines how many beats are in each bar and which note value constitutes one beat.

These don't just appear at the start of a guitar or drum score; they appear at the beginning of every score/song/exercise/whatever.

Here's a way for you to know how to understand time signatures.

The folks above have done a fine job explaining this, but you should know how to read all time signatures and what these things really mean.

The first number above, the '107' is the beats per minute.

This refers to the tempo, if you play with a metronome, you should set it at that value in order to play it at the speed that the composer intended it to be played at.

The other 2 numbers that are on top of each other refers to the time signatures.(6/8)

the note on top refers to the number of beats per measure and the number below refers to which note value gets the beat.

So in the case of 6/8, there are 6 beats per measure where the 8th note gets the beat.

If your time signature is 3/4

you have 3 beats per measure and the quarter note gets the beat.

If you have 4/4, you have 4 beats per measure and again the quarter note gets the beat and so forth.

The bottom number in the fraction is unit for counting the "tics".

The top number indicates that there are 6 tics (or 8th notes) in one measure.

To set the speed.

The top indication tells you that there are 107 quarter notes (or 214 8th notes) per minutes.

This serves to set your drum computer or metronome.

plain 'gets the beat' is essentially that value of the note by which the time signature and rhythm are measured.

So again to recap, the top number is the number of beats per measure and the bottom note (the one that gets the beat) is the value of the notes

The 107 on top of the score is the tempo or as it is referred to, beats per minute ( BPM ).

The BPM is relatively known as the speed at which the song goes at.

The second set of numbers ( 6/8 ) is known as the time signature or the meter signature or the measure signature.

There are 4 main types of time signatures.

Simple ( 4/4 ) compound ( 9/8, 12/8 ) complex ( 5/4 ) mixed ( 13/16 & 4/4 or 5/8 & 3/8 ) and additive ( 3+2+3/8 )

, it shows you at which how many beats are in each bar over what note gets the beat or the value of tones.

So say if the time signature was of a common bottom value; the most common bottom values include 4, 8, 16, 32.

so a good example would be anything from 4/4 or 2/4

Question: At the start of a guitar or drum score , there are always these 2 numbers which I don't understand    What do the 2 numbers circled in  red  mean ??

What do these numbers at the start of the music score mean

At the start of a guitar or drum score , there are always 2 numbers, the top number is the number of beats per measure and the bottom note (the one that gets the beat) is the value of the notes.

The bottom number in the fraction is the unit for counting the beats and the top number tells you how many beats are in a bar. The top number tells you that there are 107 quarter notes per minute.

The bottom number in the fraction is the unit for counting the beats.

The top number indicates that there are 6 beats in a bar.


The best software that I've heard of is Melodyne.

It's capabilities are truly amazing

and I think it will do what you want very well.

Take a look.

It's not cheap though

but I think it has a free trial! http://www.celemony.com/en/melodyne/what-is-melodyne

There is an open-source project called CLAM .It

has an application that automatically analyzes chords: http://clam-project.org/wiki/Chordata_tutorial

There are also more advanced applications that are part of the CLAM suite that can do more complex analysis.

Here is a demo of chordata :

There is software for that.

But it is not always very accurate.

Especially with multiple voices (or instruments) starting at the same time.

Research on this started over 40 years ago: Rabiner, Lawrence, et al.

"A comparative performance study of several pitch detection algorithms." Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, IEEE Transactions on 24.5 (1976): 399-418. And has improved a lot during the last few years:

De La Cuadra, Patricio, Aaron Master, and Craig Sapp.

Efficient pitch detection techniques for interactive music.

" Proceedings of the 2001 International Computer Music Conference. 2001.

I suggest you take a look at the pitch detection plugin of the (free software)

Audacity here.

This is called transcription software; did you mean an app as in a mobile device app?

Or desktop?

There are many libraries that you could use if you were willing to develop your own app for either, of course, but there are also many already in existence.

I'm not sure how accurate they are, but you can always give a couple a shot (try searching Github or SourceForge)!

(Or just wait for someone else's answer)

Ableton Live has a feature built in called "Harmony-to-MIDI" where it analyzes an audio track (could be piano, guitar, whole song.. anything) and it outputs a MIDI sequence replicating the chords played in the piece.

It even chooses the closest sounding synth patch to match the source.

Also available is Melody-to-MIDI and Rhythm-to-MIDI.

I'm not much of a keyboardist so I can't vouch for 100% accuracy, but it usually sounds pretty good to me.

It might not be worth buying the software for this alone, but if you are into recording and producing music Ableton is definitely worth a look.

You can try to software free for 30 days I believe.

Edit:

I just tried a program called Transcribe!

and it is very useful for transcribing recorded material.

You can load your mp3s and it will analyze the frequencies and tell you which notes are represented over time.

Works for piano, guitar, voice.. anything with a pitch.

It won't automatically transcribe all the notes, but it will plot out which notes are likely being played, then use your ears figure out which ones are correct.

A new app released today might be a sultion.

I dont have iOS device to check the accuracy though.

Will borrow one.

Honestly, I'm gonna give you the sell-out answer.

The best way to determine what notes and chords are being played is with your own ear.

I'm sorry, but with all due respect to other responders, it's extremely difficult for any software program to detect chords, specifically.

For basic triads, some of the best software can do the job, but so much of chord naming depends on context.

And isolating a fundamental frequency is no cakewalk, either.

For example, for simple note naming, how would a computer know that a note with the frequency of 440

Hz is a B♭♭ in a C diminished 7th chord?

The best computers currently can do is just give the most common enharmonic spellings for notes, but that creates tons of confusion.

Never mind the fact that even single notes can be extremely difficult to pick out of a song, and they tend to blend with their harmonics.

getting around that, though, at least is possible if you can just hook up your note-naming software directly to the interface of a keyboard.

Some other concerns bother me as well.

How is a computer to determine where one chord stops and ends?

When I play a C major triad, then play the note B, is that Cmaj7 or just a passing tone?

Maybe it's even part of the G major chord that follows?

How can a computer handle the rootless voicings?

Is that C♯ diminished 7th or A7♭9?

Is E-F-A-B the basis of G13, or maybe an enharmonic respelling for D♭7♯9

♭13, an altered chord?

The best way I can conceive of, until AI can just perform musical analysis faster than we can, is to learn a lot of music theory, build up your aural skills, and name them yourself, because no software on the market today can get the job done more accurately than a human.

There's a reason Music's SE is so successful.

We need humans to answer most of the good questions on this site, because context determines so much of musical analysis.

Others have suggested slowing down the recording.

That's a novel idea, and whenever I transcribe from audio I make use of any way I can to slow down the notes.

I cannot understate how effective that is.

Question: What is a reasonably good way to detect chords in solo piano music?  Not the MIDI ones, but music generated by real piano/electronic keyboard.   I am trying to play a piano piece and check out its chords by feeding the piano output sound through microphone to my computer.

Detect piano notes and chords

The best software for detecting notes and chords in music is possibly Melodyne. Ableton Live has a feature built in called "Harmony-to-MIDI" where it analyzes an audio track (could be piano, guitar, whole song.. anything) and it outputs a MIDI sequence replicating the chords played in the piece. However, the best way to determine what notes and chords are being played is with your own ear.

The best way to identify chrods from audio may well be with your own ear. However, software programmes that may be able to help include Melodyne and Ableton Live.

Software programmes that may be able to help with this task include Melodyne and Ableton Live.

The best way to identify chords from audio may well be with your own ear.


I suppose that happens in the left hand in the songs you're referring to, while the right hand plays something different?

Then it's a kind of alternate bass .

In all your examples, the pattern is first, perfect fifth, octave.

I guess you can understand why the first and the octave sound good (sound in unison),

right?

It's the same note.

The note in between is a perfect fifth.

Wikipedia says The perfect fifth is more consonant, or stable, than any other interval except the unison and the octave

This means that when you play a note, the 'best sounding' note in unison with it (after the octave) is the perfect fifth.

You might understand it better when you write it as 'perfect fifth' rather than 'fifth'.

The term perfect identifies the perfect fifth as belonging to the group of perfect intervals (including the unison, perfect fourth and octave), so called because of their simple pitch relationships and their high degree of consonance.

All three of those are simply I-V-I progressions.

the V-I is called an authentic cadence, or full close.

It's the most widely used cadence there is.

I'm not sure what else I can say about it.

V

-I is when the music moves from the Dominant chord to the Tonic.

There are arguments that all western music is about how we move from the dominant to the tonic, but that's a huuuuge topic

As for which sets go together, it's all about what key you are in, and the context of what you're playing, and which follows which.

(basically it's a way too broad topic, but start by learning about key signatures)

see also: Wikipedia on Authentic cadences

Assuming that the chords are intended to be read top to bottom, left to right, I would say that you have a I V

I chord progression with dominant seventh/ sharp ninth chords.

In this case the seventh is omitted, but the combination of a major and minor 3rd in the same chord (i.e. E G# B G or A C# E C) would usually be called a dominant seventh/ sharp ninth.

This is the classic Hendrix chord in Purple Haze, among other things...

If you are talking about guitar, these are "power chords", usually notated as "5" chords (as in "C5").

Played on three adjacent strings, they are easily movable chords.

Move the shape to different strings (e.g., from EAD to ADG) and you get the perfect fourth.

Especially when played on an electric and adding distortion, power chords have a distinctive sound.

For examples, see The Kinks' You Really Got Me Deep Purple's Smoke on the Water or

The Cars' You Might Think

In a general sense, that pattern is simply referred to as "open fifths."

(It has other names too, such as a {0,7} unordered pitch class set).

Sticklers might argue that this is not a chord at all but an interval with one note doubled.

It's common because the notes are harmonious with each other even in lower ranges.

A full chord in the bass sounds very muddy, but leaving it "open" allows the notes to ring a bit clearer.

You will see open fifths in the left hand whenever a chord is in the "open position" meaning the notes of the chord are spaced out for a more open sound.

Another common left-hand pattern is 0-5-10 (C1,G1,E2) which also has a pleasant open sound but is more difficult to play as it requires your left hand to stretch to a 10th.

So that explains left hand open fifths, but why does this pattern show up in the right hand as well?

Well, an open fifth is a lot like a triad that is missing its third.

Some chords, however, have their third in the bass (this is known as a 6-3 chord, named after the size of the intervals above the lowest note).

When there is a third in the bass it is very difficult to double it without introducing parallel octaves, which is considered poor voice leading in much of western music.

So if there is a third in the bass, the right hand is often playing open fifths.

You'll find this pattern all over the place in the scores of Mozart and Haydn.

Question: I really commonly find that contemporary songs use an arpeggiated up-and-down progression over notes that are in this shape, here are some examples:   C1, G1, C2  C#1, G#, C#2   E1, B, E2  A1, E, A2   Is there a name for this?  How can I tell which sets of these go together?

What is this common left-hand arpeggiated pattern?

In a general sense, the arpeggiated up-and-down progression pattern used in comtemporary songs is simply referred to as "open fifths." If you are talking about guitar, these are "power chords", usually notated as "5" chords (as in "C5").

It is unclear what this pattern is called, but potential names include "I-V-I progressions", "power chords" or "open fifths".


In an orchestral situation, it is a terrible idea to rely on the conductor - they may not be able to cue you or instead are going to give a more important cue.

Just because you are not playing does not mean you're allowed to sit and wait for a bus.

Scores that have been edited well will have "cues" written in the parts, so, say you zone out accidentally or lose your place after 200 measures

, you see the cue for an oboe solo in your part

and you know where you are.

Also, here are a couple good habits to get into: raise a finger or flick your leg each time you get to a rehearsal mark - this is a great way to keep a section together (trombones in Mahler, for example.)

when counting measures, give one number to the entire measure, and take the measure's duration to say the number to yourself.

Ex: Ooonnnnneeeee Twwwooooooo Threeeeee etc etc.

Counting this way greatly reduces counting confusion.

Like others have mentioned - listen to others around you; know what they are doing.

Just like in a play, it's good to know everyone's lines around your lines so that if someone else screws up you're still good to go.

Adding to Dom's answer, the key is often in listening for cues in other people.

Find out what other parts are doing around the time you come back in and before, so you can listen for that sign that you're about to come back in.

In an orchestra, let the conductor do the work for you

- they should let you know your moment is coming.

In a smaller group, say a string quartet, you wouldn't expect such long rests (after all, you're 25% of the ensemble) -

but learn what the other parts sound like and use that to time your return.

So instead of "Now I count 64 bars", it's "I'll come back in after the third repetition of the main melody".

You don't actually have to count every bar that you don't play especially if you go many bars without playing anything.

Most large form pieces and even Jazz pieces are broken down into smaller parts i.e. an A section, a B section, C section, ect.

So you could have sections A, B, and C be 32 bars each

and you many not start playing until 4 bars into section C and instead of just counting 68 bars

you could listen for the start of the C section and then count 4 bars.

If you know the song inside and out you may not even need to count the 4 bars you may just be able to "feel" when you come in.

Also the conductor in an orchestra will cue the instruments coming in as it is what they do.

I count bars 1-2-3-4 2-2-3-4 3-2-3-4 etc.

in my head and simultaneously keep track on my fingers.

Each finger denotes 1, thumb denotes 5, so I can count up to nine on one hand.

So with two hands I can keep count up to 99.

Major benefit of this is that I can multi-task - I keep counting whilst picking up mutes, pointing at music and so on.

After a while you can preset a count, so if the conductor says start at bar 8

you put down thumb and three fingers and start counting from there.

One advantage of designating fingers as 1 and thumb as 5 over binary is that it's much easier to preload a count on your fingers.

The disadvantage is that you can only count up to 100 on two hands, rather than 1000...

So say the conductor says "we're going from bar 67"

and you have an entry at bar 80,

you just preload 67 onto your fingers and start counting bars.

Compare this with having to preload 67 in binary onto your fingers.

Back in my orchestra days I played oboe, so I often had long rests.

Until you know when to come in based on what's happening in the other parts, as others have already said, you need to count bars of rest.

I used to count on my fingers, but in binary, from left thumb to right thumb.

That way, you can count to 2^10 or 1024, which is probably enough for most pieces.

It starts like this:(all fingers are in except those noted)1-

left thumb;2- left

left thumb and index;4- left middle;5-

left thumb and middle;6- left index and middle;7- left thumb, index, and middle;8- left ring; etc.

It's fun and easy to learn.

I also recommend counting in the way Brian THOMAS has explained (1-2-3-4-2-2-3-4).

However as mentioned this gets really complicated with 20+ bars rest.

Now from my experience with sheet music in orchestras you often already have long rests seperated whenever the key, general theme or athmosphere changes or new instrumental groups are introduced.

Try to pay attention to such separations and listen to the music.

Try to listen to the piece and figure out what happens at those seperations and use them as markers.

Generally listening to the piece you play a couple of times is a good idea.

I've had some long rests in certain pieces that were really hard to count but after listening to the music for a while I memorized my entranced by heart.

If your sheet doesn't have any seperations during long rests (or has seperations that don't make any sense) then make them yourself.

I usually look at the sheets of other instruments that I can visually see or hear well and when they suddenly start playing

I mark their entrance in my rest.

Solos also work great for this.

What also helps is looking for fermatas.

These are often really easy to hear and are a great means of orientation.

As a trombonist, I often had VERY long sections of rest.

Obviously I'm not going to sit there counting "one-two-three-four, two-two-three-four.....six-hundred-and-seventy-three-two-three-four...

The composer or copyist must supply me with landmarks, including a prominent cue played by another instrument a few bars before my entry.

Previous players of the part might leave me further pencilled-in information like "time for two pints here!".

Question: Playing in a jazz band there are often 5,6 or 8 bars of silence. This is no problem as I can count them on my fingers. But how do I count larger rests, for example 52, 112 or even longer rests, as in classical pieces?  What techniques do you have to count a large numbers of silent bars?

How do you count many bars of silence (rests)?

When your instrument has a long rest, it is good to find out what other parts are doing around the time you come back in and before, so you can listen for that sign that you're about to come back in. If you know the song inside and out you may not even need to count the 4 bars you may just be able to "feel" when you come in. In an orchestra, let the conductor do the work for you. You don't actually have to count every bar that you don't play especially if you go many bars without playing anything.

The answer to this question will be subjective, but you may not need to count all the bars that you don't play. If you know the piece or other people's parts well enough, you may be able to simply recognise when you're supposed to start playing again. Alternatively, you could count the bars on your fingers or simply wait for the conductor to indicate when you should start again.

Knowing other people's lines is a good way to know when you should come in rather than counting rests.

You could rely on the conductor to let you know when to come in.

Some people would argue that it's not necessary to count every bar that you don't play.

Some people count the bars on their fingers.