Rock Band template
I noticed the Rock Band template, but wondered if it could be improved.
It is based on a style used in the band scores I have. In comparison to the current offering, I think the instrument names, brackets, drumset and sound volume are better, whilst there are additional entries to include tablature, an acoustic guitar and percussion.
The mscz and mscx files were produced in 2.0 Beta 1 - Mac 10.7.5.
I was asked to post in the issue tracker, but I want to invite feedback prior to potentially filing it.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 'Rock Band' Template.mscz | 3.8 KB |
| 'Rock Band' Template.mscx | 125.96 KB |
Comments
I like the overall layout, but I think it's overkill. I don't think most people writing music for rock bands will be using three guitars - and dealing with both notation and tab for all three - or auxiliary percussion. That seems a rather more special-purpose template to me.
If it were me, there would be one vocal staff, two guitars, bass, drums, and that's it. The lead guitar would have standard notation & tab, the rhythm guitar would have only standard notation. Bass I guess could go standard only or standard + tab. It's a more streamlined sort of band than your template, I guess, and a more streamlined way of writing for it.
In reply to I like the overall layout, by Marc Sabatella
Thanks for commenting.
As a transcriptionist, I'm not really in the mindset of 'lead' and 'rhythm' guitar (e.g. what if both are leading, or rhythm?) - hence the numbering.
To me, the instrument line-up is a typical example of a rock song - hence the inclusion of the acoustic guitar and tambourine, though the latter was to demonstrate percussion and drum staves.
One or two books use slash notation, or only include tablature for some entries. I included tablature of all guitars as it often seems to be the main reading method of such players.
I don't use templates personally, but just intervened incase they could be better. I don't mind either way about its adaptation.
In reply to Thanks for commenting. As a by chen lung
I'm thinking of people writing music for rock bands they actually play in. And I imagine many more will be the simpler sort of lineup I mention than the sort of lineup in your template.
As for lead versus rhythm guitar, again, ask a real musician actually playing in one of these bands if he considers himself to be playing "rhythm guitar" or "guitar 2". I think you'll get dumbfounded stares at the suggestion they are "guitar 2".
Slash notation will of course be big for this if/when it is implemented natively.
In reply to I like the overall layout, by Marc Sabatella
The problem here is what kind of rock band you are talking about.
Do you mean a progressive rock band like Yes or Focus which would have keyboard/organ staves as well as guitar(s) bass and percussion.
Do you mean a classic rock band like the original Beatles or Beach Boys lineup which would have the layout Mark gives.
Do you mean a folk rock band like late Fleetwood Mac? A country rock band like the Eagles?
There are so many styles that one rock band template can't cover them all I suspect.
In reply to The problem here is what kind by ChurchOrganist
I thought about keyboards, but excluded them as I would have preferred to utilise the generic entry.
I was thinking more about a band such as Thunder, but as you say, there are different kinds.
In reply to I thought about keyboards, by chen lung
You know, I find it hard to believe that rock bands will use more than a very elementary notation.
In reply to You know, I find it hard to by xavierjazz
You've never played with session musicians such as Rick Wakeman then.
In reply to You've never played with by ChurchOrganist
Good point!