The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Posts 1 to 25 of 70
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    I love learning solos and playing them with backing tracks. Some I have had to transcribe, others have been already transcribed and printed. As a result, my technique has greatly improved and my timing. I also have the joy of reproducing my favorite songs by the Jazz masters. It is a visceral thrill for me to play these songs and rewarding when I can play them without mistakes (which is rare).

    This is not improvising, of course, which real Jazz is all about. But I have read that Wes Montgomery and others would actually play note-for-note recreations on the bandstand.

    It does not seem many of you learn note-for-note solos. Is there no value to this? Do you not enjoy playing someone else's solos? And if there is no value, what do you think of the Jazz greats who reproduced other's solos while on the bandstand?

    Thanks.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    There is tons of value in it. That's the best way to pick up jazz vocabulary and eventually it will become your own.

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    Keep playing those solos. Use them as etudes. Play them straight or use them as a basis for your own improvisation. Its yours to keep. You've worked hard to put it under your finger, so don't ever loose it. I've learnt about 10 solos so far in my guitar journey and I never get tired of playing them from time to time, but when I turn on the improvising switch I don't think about any particular solo. Lots of ideas will come to you without you having to think because you've played them so much.

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    That is one of the most rewarding, fruitful and enjoyable ways to advance as a player. I love doing that, both transcribing and playing solos from the many excellent transcription books that are out there.

    There is a group in the Improvisation section that has been learning a published Jimmy Raney solo together. We go slow, just 4 measures a week, but it has been fun to see each person's post that week, to watch them play (fingering) and commiserate with each other about the struggle to get Raney's phrases under our fingers.

    My first transcription was Kenny Burrell's solo on "I'm Old Fashioned" on his album Sunup to Sundown. I still love that recording and had a great time learning the solo. It taught me a lot. it's a great solo, but when transcribed, it becomes simple in conception.

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    Copying/playing solos note for note is the most well established, time proven method in the history of the jazz tradition. The only reason you might think you're the only one doing it is because everytime someone promotes it, a bunch of advanced players say they never did it and they play awesome and didn't want the purity of their own creativity influenced by it, or some othe absolute bullshit comment.

    After awhile, you just stop mentioning it, such is the forum.

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    It's the best single thing you can do for your playing, really, transcribing. (I use that in the broad sense, I don't really mean writing down, but of course, you can...)

    I rarely have the time to do a whole solo and get it to performance level, but if I did, I would. But I steal licks ALL the time.

    In the end though, improvising is what I like best about jazz.

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    Everybody transcribe and copy solos...
    this is just a jazz language...;-)

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    There's great value in it. Make no doubt about it. That said I've rarely done it. I'm stubborn. If jazz is improvisation and if improvisation is the realization of YOU through musical forms, it never made much sense to me to wear other peoples pants, shirts, shoes or skirts.

    But at a certain point, getting your language together its a real short cut to hearing more finely what you might be hearing in your head, or aspiring to.

    What I've never understood is the passion some people have to learning solos note for note as if that's the end in itself. For me, thats never seemed to be any particular accomplishment. Great. You can play Wes's solo, or Sco, Metheny, or Gutherie Govan or Ford. I mean WTF. They did it already. I applaud the guy who did it originally, not the paint by numbers guy. You see guys in museums copying masters on the wall. Great. I used to visit museums all the time as a kid through adult. I see technique. Great. But I realized even then that's not what art is about.

    So yeah. There's great value. But just remember if you want o be an artist you have to disconnect from them and connect with you.

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by henryrobinett
    What I've never understood is the passion some people have to learning solos note for note as if that's the end in itself. For me, thats never seemed to be any particular accomplishment. Great. You can play Wes's solo, or Sco, Metheny, or Gutherie Govan or Ford. I mean WTF. They did it already. I applaud the guy who did it originally, not the paint by numbers guy. You see guys in museums copying masters on the wall. Great. I used to visit museums all the time as a kid through adult. I see technique. Great. But I realized even then that's not what art is about.

    So yeah. There's great value. But just remember if you want o be an artist you have to disconnect from them and connect with you.
    This whole thread has answered some nagging questions I had. Thanks for all the responses.

    I had to respond to you, Henry in that I recognize what you are saying about the note-for-note soloing being an end in and of itself. I don't want to stop there. I want to be able to improvise too.

    I can see how someone can fall into this trap, however. I know several musicians who take great pride in playing compositions note-for-note. Some of them play very long and complex classical songs or progressive rock songs. They are happy stopping there.

    As you pointed out, this is where the artistic pursuits start to diverge. I want to be able to go further and not only compose my own compositions, but also be able to improvise in the moment - if I read you right, you are saying this is what makes for a "Jazz artist" (although there is improvisation in some other genres, such as the Blues).

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    For a lot of us amateur, or "hobby" players, the appeal of learning solos note for note is simply that we enjoy performing for our family and friends. Somebody says "Play something…" it's nice to have something we can play. It's especially true when we have very demanding day jobs and families and don't have the hours a day, years of experience, and hundreds of gigs to refine our "own" approach. We love the music and want stuff to play for family and friends, and learning solos or arrangements that we can play is a great way both to have something to play, and also to be learning important parts of the jazz idiom.

    My first 20 or so standards were chord-melody "arrangements" that I still love to play, even though I quit learning arrangements a long time ago.

    We're not all here on an existential quest via finding our own deepest jazz voice. Some are people who love to play the music and love sounding like our heroes, even if only in a limited way.

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    Nope



    I think it's a great laugh...

    I think playing along with records is good for your time and technique, too (trying to get really tight is hard!!!)... Besides, if it's good enough for Wes, it's definitely good enough for me...
    Last edited by christianm77; 01-06-2016 at 12:46 PM.

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by AlsoRan
    This whole thread has answered some nagging questions I had. Thanks for all the responses.

    I had to respond to you, Henry in that I recognize what you are saying about the note-for-note soloing being an end in and of itself. I don't want to stop there. I want to be able to improvise too.

    I can see how someone can fall into this trap, however. I know several musicians who take great pride in playing compositions note-for-note. Some of them play very long and complex classical songs or progressive rock songs. They are happy stopping there.

    As you pointed out, this is where the artistic pursuits start to diverge. I want to be able to go further and not only compose my own compositions, but also be able to improvise in the moment - if I read you right, you are saying this is what makes for a "Jazz artist" (although there is improvisation in some other genres, such as the Blues).
    I had a very famous musician (Mingus) respond to me when I told him I wanted to be a composer. He said simply, "Well write then." I expected some sage advice.

    Same thing when I talked to my theory professor. He was a very good composer. He said exactly the same thing. You have to get off your ass and do it. You can study and read and copy, but all that's doing is putting OFF the leap into existential experience of improvisation. You can learn licks. You can learn theory. But you gotta do it. There's no magic elixir.

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by henryrobinett
    I know. I never understood that. Never. Not once.
    I get that. I admire players who have their soul 100% invested in this, and who are stretching out with everything they have to find their own voice. Without them, there'd be no jazz, no excitement. But without all us hobby players, amateurs, fans and wannabes, nobody would be buying the CDs, keeping up the buzz, and spreading the good word. We shamelessly feed off of the devotion and accomplishment of the pioneers and innovators, but we're making our own original contribution, our own soul-investment, in other domains than music. The music keeps us reminded why we care about those other domains.

    In the church of jazz there are high priests, prophets, ordinary local pastors… and there are also devoted "lay" practitioners, not to mention an army of poseurs, wannabes and fans.

    I'm reminded of a great quote from the philosopher George Steiner. He spends several pages reaming out literary critics for their total lack of original creation, but then notes that we are not all great artists. Some people serve art by much more humble talents. He notes, "Surely, under God, there must be license for caring mediocrity."

    Something to ponder.

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by henryrobinett
    I had a very famous musician (Mingus) respond to me when I told him I wanted to be a composer. He said simply, "Well write then." I expected some sage advice.

    Same thing when I talked to my theory professor. He was a very good composer. He said exactly the same thing. You have to get off your ass and do it. You can study and read and copy, but all that's doing is putting OFF the leap into existential experience of improvisation. You can learn licks. You can learn theory. But you gotta do it. There's no magic elixir.
    Haha great!

    That's what all the composers I ever met have said. Sure you can work on orchestration and counterpoint etc, but when it comes down to it you have to put pen to paper.

    If you want to play, play. I'm not even sure you have to play solos note for note although this is quite a traditional thing to do (esp. back in the days of '78s when the solos were shorter). I think you can if you want. If not, explore other things. There are plenty of exceptions on both sides.

    But don't expect learning solos to make you an improviser. You have to do that yourself.

    Why not transcribe the solo in notation, and get some guys to play it unison or harmony as part of an arrangement? That always sounds great. Or use the first chorus of someone else's solo as a springboard to your own stuff. I think people will respect the nod to the tradition if you add something your own.
    Last edited by christianm77; 01-06-2016 at 12:52 PM.

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by lawson-stone
    ...We're not all here on an existential quest via finding our own deepest jazz voice. Some are people who love to play the music and love sounding like our heroes, even if only in a limited way.
    Quote Originally Posted by henryrobinett
    I know. I never understood that. Never. Not once.
    I understand both approaches and we are all wired differently. Both are valid for producing music IMHO. There are many things that I like to emulate that I have learned from other players, but I happen to find it more enjoyable to be on the existential quest.
    Last edited by lammie200; 01-06-2016 at 12:55 PM.

  17. #16

    User Info Menu

    My great uncle, a lab band tenor sax player, argued that transcribing doesn't help develop one's own style and approach. Personally, I think he's wrong as hell on that point.

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    I think there are a couple of angles to this discussion. One is that some love certain interpretations of standards by the best guitarists or other musicians in the world. For example, I like the acoustic nylon string work of Joe Pass, in particular his CD Unforgettable and Songs for Ellen. I would like to transcribe the tunes off Unforgettable and publish the transcriptions. (Of course, one would have to negotiate copyright issues with the publisher - could be an insurmountable problem.) But many guitarists might be happy to enjoy the convenience of just reading and playing the source material.

    On the other hand, they would not gain the benefits of doing it themselves. As a classically trained guitarist, I am comfortable reading sheet music, but I acknowledge that the benefits of doing a transcription yourself are greater.

    Transcription is not composition. Yet it does help potential composers learn their craft. So while not all of us will compose a standard, we can all benefit from studying the best composers and performers.

  19. #18
    I need to do more for sure. I love the sound of my children singing jazz lines from something they've heard me singing along with repeatedly. My son and daughter can mostly sing along with all of Miles' solo on So What. :-)

    While I do think it can help with time etc., I think that guitarists generally don't have their time together enough to get what they should out of transcription. The more I learn about subdivisions and hearing them, the more I realize that there was a lot that I wasn't even "hearing" a few years ago. I don't know how much it would have helped, at that earlier point in my journey, to have worked on approximating jazz feels without understanding the underlying structures.

    A lot of guitarists play what they apparently perceive as "loose" and "kind of out of time", based on listening to advanced players (who use rhythmic and feel devices which are far beyond the student's ability to understand), and then, trying to emulate that feel. I don't know that all of that time spent listening (without understanding) is beneficial, or to what degree. About 99% of horn players, percussionists, and pianists have all of their basic rhythmic stuff together, in terms of polyrhythms, basic triplet subdivisions...when they come to jazz. They just have to apply new patterns and reference to a basically solid foundation. Guitarists very often come from a different place in terms of experience.

    Anyway, I like David Liebman's page on the transcription process. It provides some balance to the discussion. Basically, transcription is important and you should heavily focus on it (for a time). Then, allow your own voice to emerge. The Complete Transcription Process | David Liebman Also, Bert Ligon teaches a lot on the process of analyzing lines, breaking down, and rewriting to make your own. Basically, you've got a voice and it's always a creative process.
    Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 01-06-2016 at 01:55 PM.

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    Two steps of jazz improvisation:
    1.You play what you learn
    2.You play what you hear
    Good Luck
    Kris

  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    Playing solos note-for-note is an essential way of learning the music, but you should choose the solos of recognized masters. I started with Wes and Kenny Burrell, and then went to Tal and Jimmy Raney.

    Now I just copy things I like from horn players and pianists.

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    I think the anecdotal evidence is pretty convincing, no?

    - Pat Metheny learned by copying Wes solos note-for-note (even if we can't really hear it in his playing). He has said that Smokin' at the Half Note was what taught him how to play jazz.

    - Wes learned by copying Charlie Christian solos note-for-note (and then performed them live!).

    - There is a story about someone lending a young Rene Thomas a Raney record, and when he got it back a year later it was completely worn out and Thomas could play everything on the album. (Of course, some criticise RT for sounding too much like Raney early in his career.)

    - The list goes on and on. How many iconic players, not only guitarists like Raney and Pass, but of all instruments talk about having learned by copying Parker note-for-note? Didn't Parker himself start out by copying Lester Young solos?

    I know I've posted this elsewhere, but Tuck Andress says:
    "If I had known then what I know now... I would have sat down and learned how to make every sound that Wes Montgomery made. I would have just started off with that, just the way he started off with Charlie Christian. I wouldn't have thought about it, I wouldn't have tried to understand the harmony, anything. I would have just learned to make those sounds, and that would be the most direct path. Then I could expand and eventually understand, but it would be like a native language."

  23. #22

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by sgcim
    Playing solos note-for-note is an essential way of learning the music, but you should choose the solos of recognized masters. I started with Wes and Kenny Burrell, and then went to Tal and Jimmy Raney.

    Now I just copy things I like from horn players and pianists.
    Uh, well . . erm, I would argue this point only because it isn't the way I've done it. So I'd argue that it might be an acceptable way of doing it; a generally agreed upon method, but not actually essential. And I actually really like the way I play.

    That said I have transcribed solos in the past. Gets my ears cleared out. Dexter, Cedar Walton, Coltrane, Miles, Rollins, Red Garland. But never memorized any of them. Its nice to be able to see what your ears are hearing. But essential? Nah. Not for me.

  24. #23

    User Info Menu

    I posted this elsewhere on the net regarding transcribing.

    I had a teacher who had me transcribing, writing out and playing solos from various players. It was time consuming, but it was a wonderful learning experience. We would play the song (Green Dolphin Street by Grant Green comes to mind) together and he had me play Grant's solo note for note the first time through and then start improvising for the next time. It was amazing what doing that did for my playing. He'd ask what lick or phrase in Grant's solo really stood out for me and then have me apply that to songs that had the same changes. Then we'd pull up the same song from another player...not necessarily all guitarists, and he'd have me transcribe one chorus from those players. Then the same drill with picking and using a favourite phrase. After doing this with 5 or 6 solos he'd say OK now play a solo using those favourite phrases and adding your own. It was and continues to be some of the hardest work I've done on the guitar, but the one from which my improvising has benefited the most.

  25. #24

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    I need to do more for sure. I love the sound of my children singing jazz lines from something they've heard me singing along with repeatedly. My son and daughter can mostly sing along with all of Miles' solo on So What. :-)

    While I do think it can help with time etc., I think that guitarists generally don't have their time together enough to get what they should out of transcription. The more I learn about subdivisions and hearing them, the more I realize that there was a lot that I wasn't even "hearing" a few years ago. I don't know how much it would have helped, at that earlier point in my journey, to have worked on approximating jazz feels without understanding the underlying structures.

    A lot of guitarists play what they apparently perceive as "loose" and "kind of out of time", based on listening to advanced players (who use rhythmic and feel devices which are far beyond the student's ability to understand), and then, trying to emulate that feel. I don't know that all of that time spent listening (without understanding) is beneficial, or to what degree. About 99% of horn players, percussionists, and pianists have all of their basic rhythmic stuff together, in terms of polyrhythms, basic triplet subdivisions...when they come to jazz. They just have to apply new patterns and reference to a basically solid foundation. Guitarists very often come from a different place in terms of experience.

    Anyway, I like David Liebman's page on the transcription process. It provides some balance to the discussion. Basically, transcription is important and you should heavily focus on it (for a time). Then, allow your own voice to emerge. The Complete Transcription Process | David Liebman Also, Bert Ligon teaches a lot on the process of analyzing lines, breaking down, and rewriting to make your own. Basically, you've got a voice and it's always a creative process.
    That's a very good point - but wouldn't it be possible to learn the rhythms intuitively if you paid enough attention to them? Perhaps it's easier with the older more 'locked in' stuff like Charlie C...

  26. #25

    User Info Menu

    I have only learned a few complete solos. Mostly it's been a short chorus, a few licks, or perhaps an 8 bar section. There is SO MUCH INFORMATION in just one or two phrase passages that I find it mind-boggling to work out variations and then apply them in different ways and hopefully play them for real with other people. First, play the phrase and be able to sing it. Then, play in all keys and positions and at the same time figure out what "theory" is at play here....why does the #4 or b3 sound good, where is it on the strong/weak beats, oh that's why it works now I get it, etc. Then, gradually play it faster and faster, link to other language in a cohesive way, etc. Then change it rhythmically or harmonically and use it in other tunes, make a theme out of it - maybe base an entire chorus around it. That's what I'm into right now - really putting stuff through the ringer, or using transcribed language as a launching pad for original ideas to shed, "a ha" moments theory/application wise, or as sort of call/response stuff in live playing.

    In other words, I have my hands full working with smaller amounts of material - and for me personally, I seem to get more out of my current approach vs. when I used to learn whole solos (I only learned about 4 or 5).