Standard Notation vs. Chord Symbols vs. Melody
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    This has come up in a few threads, and has been a question on my mind for some time ...


    How many of you read accompaniment notation (typically 4-voice) exactly as written?

    How many prefer to write in chord symbols? If so, do you prefer to do so with only the melody line, or with the written notation?

    Or ... even more daunting ... how many of you have braved the waters of not using any notation other than the melody line, and creating your own chord progressions on-the-spot?


    I've done all of these, and found benefits, drawbacks, triumphs, and struggles with each.

    So, what is your preference, and what experiences have you had with various approaches as an accompanist?
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Ditto, all three. To everything there is a season...
    A time to choir up, a time to unison
    A time to compound suspensions, a time for just triads
    A time for diminished, a time for augmented
    A time for one voice, a time for a thousand instruments
    A time for perfects, a time for polyclusters
    A time for final tonics, and a time for silence.
    Listen
    Thanked by 4SpeakNSpirit Earl_Grey Adam Wood Ally
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    Since I read notation better than I read chord symbols, I play notation as written.
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    Some accompaniments are better than others. I often make adjustments to the music to make it sound better to my ear.

    When I started playing for churches, the music I was given was usually just a lead sheet (ie melody line, words and guitar chords), so I learned to improvise the accompaniment based on this and I still can.
  • donr
    Posts: 971
    I personally find the lack of cord symbols educational.
    I try to figure them out for myself if needed.
  • marajoymarajoy
    Posts: 781
    My introduction to playing music in church was in a Life Teen "band," so I got really good at reading chord symbols. ;-)
    Then when I started learning the organ, it was easy to play from chord symbols, but I realized the necessity of playing from 4-part music (plus, the voice leading is usually much better than what the average or even above-average organist would come up with on the spot,) so as my organ lessons continued, I struggled through learning the 4-voices in hymns, and now that is definitely my preferred method.

    As for following just a melody line? That is what my predecessor does/did, but I find it overwhelming. I could probably struggle through a simple hymn, but wouldn't want to subject a congregation to that, although it is certainly something I would like to work on.
    Thanked by 1SpeakNSpirit
  • Earl_GreyEarl_Grey
    Posts: 891
    Ditto. All the above are usefull in their own right. I suppose given my 'druthers I'd choose full notation plus chords as a best of both worlds. If I was only acting as accompanist I would probably stick to standard notation, but chords can be liberating when cantoring and/or directing at the same time. Sometimes I favor a leadsheet to reduce/avoid page turns.

    What's not cool is a lyric-only sheet with 3-4 chords scribbled off to the side in the margin (typically in a non-conventional "progression") with no indication of any sort of tempo, rhythm, repeats or melody. This was the case when I "sat-in" with the praise band thinking I would sight read. Problem was there was nothing to read and had to wing-it. A new take on words with wings!
    Thanked by 2SpeakNSpirit ryand
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    I'd call it something else, but I feel like such language would be deleted.
    Thanked by 1Earl_Grey
Add a Comment