The tabr tutorials began with a basic example that introduced the general workflow.

• Define a musical phrase with phrase or the shorthand alias p.
• Add the phrase to a track.
• Add the track to a score.
• Render the score to pdf with tab.

This short R script example is more complex. It does not represent a complete tab of a song; it is just a short arrangement of two basic fingerpicking patterns similar to but not exactly the same as heard in Blues Saraceno’s Devil’s got you beat. The second pattern is actually just a small slice of the first pattern that is shifted in time slightly. While not a complete tab, it is much more thorough than the opening tutorial example, making use of several techniques and functions that have been covered.

Some of the most interesting things to note below include:

• Use of all the available song information arguments in header.
• Nested repeats with percent repeats applied inside of a volta repeat.
• Avoidance of repetition of the text annotation attached to the opening note when using percent repeats.

## R code

header <- list(
title = "Devil's got you beat",
composer = "Words and music Blues Saraceno",
performer = "Blues Saraceno",
album = "Dark Country 4",
subtitle = "From the album Dark Country 4 by Blues Saraceno",
arranger = "Two picking patterns arranged by Matthew Leonawicz",
)

txt <- c("DADGAD tuning with capo on 1st fret. Fingerpicking. Let ring.")
tuning <- "d, a, d g a d'"

# melody 1
notes <- c(pn("f d c d a d'", 2), "f g a d' f d c a,")
info <- purrr::map_chr(c("16(", notate("16(", txt)),
~pc(.x, "16) 8 8 16 16 16( 16) 8 8 16 16 16- 16*7"))
strings <- "4 4 5 4 2 1 4 4 5 4 2 1 4 4 2 1 4 4 5 5"
p1 <-purrr::map(info, ~p(notes, .x, strings))
e1 <- p("d a d' c a, f, d,", "8 16 16 16( 16) 16( 16)", "4 2 1 5 5 6 6")
e2 <- p("d a d' c a, f, e, d,", "8 16 16 16( 16) 16- 16( 1)", "4 2 1 5 5 6 6 6")

#melody 2
p2 <- p("d a d' f d c", "8 16*4 8", "4 2 1 4 4 5")

p_all <- c(pct(c(p1[[2]], e1), 3), volta(pct(p2, 3), 1), p1[[1]], e1, p1[[1]], e2)
track(p_all, tuning = tuning) %>% score() %>%
tab("out.pdf", "dm", "4/4", "4 = 115", header)

You can see above that notate can often obstruct otherwise convenient opportunities for code reduction. Avoiding repeating the annotation means avoiding repeating whatever it is bound to. This is not a problem for percent repeats because there is nothing to show, but would be for the repetitions of the melody at the end of the score. This is why info was mapped to a length 2 vector using an opening note with and without a bound text annotation, respectively.

The e1 and e2 endings on the phrase p1 were not used as default and alternate endings in a call to volta, respectively, because they would fail the bar check; p1 alone does not end at the end of a measure, but rather lasts for a measure and a half. This example also shows how a single note difference at the very end of the second ending, e2, an ending that is only played once at the end of the arrangement, is enough to stop you from defining what would sensibly be the full phrase (p1 through e1) as such. The slightest change forces you to split things up and expand the code, just like in a tab. And most music, at least the kind for which there is any point in transcribing, is going to change things up often even for repeated sections.

## Result

The result of the call to tab is as follows.

The next example refactors the phrases above to properly represent multiple voices in the output.