Transcribing is useless...

[christianm77]

At the other end of a spectrum, I have a friend who's never done a transcription (written). He learned the language thoroughly. He can listen to a Chris Potter solo cold and tell you exactly what is going on measure by measure and he could play any given phrase if he wanted. He did this by developing a really strong WORKING knowledge of the language; and having a really good native ear I daresay.
The point being that transcription is a complex endeavour and it's a process that does involve a close connexion with a player. The more knowledgable you are about the lexicon, syntax and semantic context of his/her note choice, the more you stand to benefit in appreciating their conscious note choices.

This is what I aspire to.

Transcription is what you do if you can't hear fast enough ;-)

As the OP pointed out, for him, it's not about the individual succession of notes, but the appreciation/reconstruction of a thought process. The more you know about the language, the better you can repeat it.
One opinion anyway.

David

Yeah I agree. I think transcription is a useful pathway to this understanding of language - a very useful one. I don't see it as an end in itself.

Ultimately I don't really give a **** whether or not someone can play such and such a solo - I want to hear them.

[pingu]

Repetition
you teach your hands
then
your hands teach you ...

thats how it is for me
but i can't play very fast

[morroben]

Yeah, I mean it's so easy to get overwhelmed by the sheer amount of stuff you can be practicing.

This sums up my entire jazz guitar experience so far.

[mr. beaumont]

Ultimately I don't really give a **** whether or not someone can play such and such a solo - I want to hear them.

Yeah, me neither. Time wasted, getting someone else's solo to performance level. What are you gonna do, play it live?

And yes, because inevitably someone will post it, there's some story about Wes playing Charlie Christian's solos or some crap. Whatever. He was Wes, I am not. And Wes moved a little past all that, dontcha think?

You all know I do the "jam of the week" thing on facebook. Every few months, they do a transcription week...and it's crazy, when they do, you get all these young posters, college kids--music students, insane chops, playing great solos from the history of jazz. Well, jazz history and Snarky Puppy. And then you never see them post again, until transcription week rolls around again...what does this mean? Are they just not confident in their improv ability yet? Or can they not improvise? It's odd. They can obviously play.

[John A.]

When I'm trying to learn a tune, I often transcribe melodies and however much of the harmony I need to get the changes. The reason? My ear is better than my eye so it's more efficient than reading, and/or the tunes as written in the sheet music I have (Real Books) is often wrong (or at least different from the way the tunes are commonly played). Transcription will always have that practical value for me. I've never routinely transcribed whole solos, just phrases to get the gist of what's going on here and there. It probably would be a good idea to do this more systematically and comprehensively, but that's also a practical matter. It would take me hours to nail a three minute solo, and I have limited time (day job, family, attention span of a gnat, impending death of the planet ...). In that same span of time, I can thoroughly learn the head and changes to a tune, and practice blowing over it, maybe even work out a bit of a chord-melody arrangement, all of which has more immediate benefit than would thoroughly learning someone else's solo. No doubt I'm missing out on something -- e.g., I'm sure the process of learning an entire Trane or Michael Brecker solo would make me a better player, but life calls for triage.

John

[don_oz]

Yeah, me neither. Time wasted, getting someone else's solo to performance level. What are you gonna do, play it live?

And yes, because inevitably someone will post it, there's some story about Wes playing Charlie Christian's solos or some crap. Whatever. He was Wes, I am not. And Wes moved a little past all that, dontcha think?

You all know I do the "jam of the week" thing on facebook. Every few months, they do a transcription week...and it's crazy, when they do, you get all these young posters, college kids--music students, insane chops, playing great solos from the history of jazz. Well, jazz history and Snarky Puppy. And then you never see them post again, until transcription week rolls around again...what does this mean? Are they just not confident in their improv ability yet? Or can they not improvise? It's odd. They can obviously play.

I'm on JOTW too, I posted twice maybe? A blues and another song, haven't posted a transcription. I see what you're saying and I somewhat agree. However, the community is lovely in that group and people are very supportive, maybe it's what those kids are searching for. Sometimes it seems like it's a show, dare i say even to show off?

On the other hand, it's like going to a jam session and seeing these conservatoire/college cats bust out their dim licks and masturbating all over the place. Sure, not all of it is bad. But just play some damn music. All of this will just lead to people only playing to just use chops, what about the people who don't have that kind of chops? Will they be conisdered unable to play because they can't play giant steps at 400bpm? These show-offs won't get that far IMO, they'll all sound the same, no-one wants that. Why listen to them, when you can go back and listen to the greats.

Transcribing should lead you to find your own voice.

Oz

[Michael Kaye]

This thread is great. I have my own love/hate relationship with transcribing. No doubt transcribing has improved my ear. I learned a ton of technique transcribing, no matter the genre. It opens the door to doing things you might not think of or imagine otherwise. You learn details like position and timbre. You learn control and restraint. There are all kinds of goodies found in transcription.

But there is a dark side (insert evil laugh). Something happens when you dive too deeply in that pool. I remember being absolutely obsessed with transcribing Larry Carlton's solo on Kid Charlemagne. (Along with everybody else, I guess). Anyway, I locked myself in a room for a week and learned it note for note in pains taking detail, every nuance, pull-off, slide and bend. I had no doubts that I had perfectly replicated the solo (and the outro) down to picking attack, breathing in the right spaces and manicuring my nails just like Larry's just to get the right touch.

In fact, I'd done such a perfect autopsy, that the solo spilled out all over the dock like the little Kintner boy would have. Dead. Lifeless. I'd sucked the magic right out of it. Mystery and wonder - gone. Funny how that happens. I would never hear that solo again, the same way I had originally felt it. It died a quick death. I never performed it and never played it again after that week. In a way, now, it seems like a different solo.

These days, I get in and I get out fast. I hear something I like and I figure it out and move on. Usually in bits and pieces. Often not to any pains taking standard, just enough to glean an idea or feel. I'll keep transcribing for sure, but it's not the only way to learn to play, nor should it be.

And somewhere out there is a recording of Kid Charlemagne where Larry does this killer solo. Haven't found it yet.

[christianm77]

When I'm trying to learn a tune, I often transcribe melodies and however much of the harmony I need to get the changes. The reason? My ear is better than my eye so it's more efficient than reading, and/or the tunes as written in the sheet music I have (Real Books) is often wrong (or at least different from the way the tunes are commonly played). Transcription will always have that practical value for me. I've never routinely transcribed whole solos, just phrases to get the gist of what's going on here and there. It probably would be a good idea to do this more systematically and comprehensively, but that's also a practical matter. It would take me hours to nail a three minute solo, and I have limited time (day job, family, attention span of a gnat, impending death of the planet ...). In that same span of time, I can thoroughly learn the head and changes to a tune, and practice blowing over it, maybe even work out a bit of a chord-melody arrangement, all of which has more immediate benefit than would thoroughly learning someone else's solo. No doubt I'm missing out on something -- e.g., I'm sure the process of learning an entire Trane or Michael Brecker solo would make me a better player, but life calls for triage.

John

Well, I remember Peter Bernstein saying that he'd only once transcribed a whole solo all the way through and that was a Charlie Christian solo for college. Mostly he works/worked on licks.

That kind of reset my perceptions. There are greats who didn't do whole solos, and greats who did.

[christianm77]

I'm on JOTW too, I posted twice maybe? A blues and another song, haven't posted a transcription. I see what you're saying and I somewhat agree. However, the community is lovely in that group and people are very supportive, maybe it's what those kids are searching for. Sometimes it seems like it's a show, dare i say even to show off?

That's what it seems like to me - but if you want to show off, why not show off your shit? It's funny, it's like a sort of very insecure showing off haha.

My kick against all of this stuff is that if you do too much of it, it becomes an exercise in fannishness. But the music culture on the web is very fannish in all areas. Most things are with your 20 and 30 somethings - the millennial culture is kind of curatorial in many ways.

For example, in the guitar world there are people trying to recreate the exact tones of their favourite records, playing the exact parts and solos of the records.

Too much of this and you end becoming a guitar player who can imitate a plethora of styles, but everything is in inverted commas. Look now I play 'bebop'! Now I play 'shred fusion'! Now I play 'country!' That's not even what a session player is meant to be IMO.

(My ideal is the opposite - a highly individual player who can participate in many different genres and crossovers and still be completely recognisable - Bill Frisell is the archetype for me. )

And I know a good way of getting views on my youtube channel would be to do a transcription video of some fashionable modern guitar player - Kurt, Lage Lund or Gilad say. And people could work out whether or not it was good to some sort of objective criteria. Unlike original music which is a matter of taste.

On the other hand, it's like going to a jam session and seeing these conservatoire/college cats bust out their dim licks and masturbating all over the place.

I like the idea of dim licks as in 'dim' - meaning not too bright in the upstairs department.

But yes, double time pattern running is an unfortunate by product of the way jazz is taught now. The same players are usually somewhat defensive on the subject of medium tempo 8th swing.

Sure, not all of it is bad. But just play some damn music. All of this will just lead to people only playing to just use chops, what about the people who don't have that kind of chops? Will they be considered unable to play because they can't play giant steps at 400bpm? These show-offs won't get that far IMO, they'll all sound the same, no-one wants that. Why listen to them, when you can go back and listen to the greats.

Transcribing should lead you to find your own voice.

Oz

Yeah it's funny. But it's not simple. I'm painfully aware of the difficult relationship between listening to players you like and trying to imitate them, and the important aspect of preserving and developing your own voice.

It's interesting to me that many of the great players of the 80s and 90s were often not chops players per se - Bill Frisell, John Scofield (more chopsy in his early stuff, but not a technique guy), Peter Bernstein. And the chopsy players who came to prominence were all individuals - Metheny, Mike Stern, Kurt. Even Allan found one thing that worked for him and a very individual voice. He wasn't trying to be a virtuoso.

And I find talk of virtuosity of players boring. 'Oh that guy can play anything'. Great. So what?

Now a high level of technique seem mandatory. But you still have guys like Jacob Bro who swim upstream.

I still think tremendous musicians with their own identity are the ones that come through, the stylists.

[lawson-stone]

I wasn't really talking about people like yourself who post youtube videos to study groups.

Do whatever you enjoy in any case. There's nothing 'wrong' with any of it, but at some point one should post their own creations.

Remember that guy who posted the AMAZING vid of him playing a Cannonball solo? I couldn't find any of his own playing in a jazz context. Which was disappointing.

I get that. But I'm reminded also of a preacher I knew who was wonderful. His messages were thoughtful, deep, engaging... I copied a couple of them word for word. I asked him "Do you mind that some of us younger guys copy your sermons?" He smiled and said, "Well... it might be the only GOOD sermon YOU preach..." and we both laughed. He confided that he'd copied his heroes for a long time before growing into his own approach to communication.

I think transcribing and sharing can be a great way to put down a layer of new ideas in one's playing, and I wouldn't hesitate to play a whole memorized solo in public if I couldn't offer something nice of my own. My goal, though, is always to improvise with my own ideas. Problem is most of my ideas are pretty cliche.

At 62, I've concluded also I will likely never become a very compelling improviser, so transcribing has become more important to me. I just want to hear myself playing compelling music. It's painful to have done this for 30 years and still not be much of an improvisor, so learning the solos of others has become a way to at least make nice noises. No, it's not true-blue genuine authentic improvisation. But it's all I've got.

[christianm77]

At 62, I've concluded also I will likely never become a very compelling improviser, so transcribing has become more important to me. I just want to hear myself playing compelling music. It's painful to have done this for 30 years and still not be much of an improvisor, so learning the solos of others has become a way to at least make nice noises. No, it's not true-blue genuine authentic improvisation. But it's all I've got.

Well if you've been trying become a better improvisor for 30 years and this approach hasn't paid off - well thereby hangs a tale, no?

Which is not to say playing written music isn't a rewarding and fun thing to do.

[lawson-stone]

Well if you've been trying become a better improvisor for 30 years and this approach hasn't paid off - well thereby hangs a tale, no?

Which is not to say playing written music isn't a rewarding and fun thing to do.

I should have been clearer. I haven't been transcribing or learning written solos for 30 years. Most of that time has been spent cracking my brains and fingers over CST, which I simply can't remember. I forget all the fingerings. I forget the chord, or the right scale. It's too cerebral for me, I guess, They say "get it in your fingers" but I started doing transcription and learning written-out solos a couple years back to "Get it OUT of my fingers." Honestly, I think I've made more progress in the last 2-3 years than in the preceding 30 (or 27 or however many) because when I learn a Jimmy Raney solo, I'm playing stuff I'd never have imagined or thought of on my own. I think it will help, but all the same, when I listen to most of you guys on this forum, I'm reminded that I'm too old and have to little discretionary time to ever reach the level of most folks on here.

So I guess what I'm saying is, trying to "play what I hear" produced rubbish because I was hearing crap. Immersing in listening didn't do much for that, just like looking at great art doesn't necessarily make you "see" artistically. Working with CST seemed to me to be working backward. Sure, I can use CST to explain what someone played and why it worked, but for me it was never generative. CST is interesting for analysis, but it never helped me think of what to play. But transcribing and learning written solos has actually started giving me some vocabulary. I am beginning to hear, for example, Jimmy Raney's lines in my head, whistling them when I'm feeding my horses and such. And the fingerings, that go places my fingers never thought to go, are beginning to work into my "noodling."

So... I'm just saying transcription and playing written solos is the only thing that has actually shown any hope of working for me because, one way or the other, it actually gets me playing stuff that sounds good as opposed to making a lot of rules and theory that aren't generative, only descriptive.

[christianm77]

I should have been clearer. I haven't been transcribing or learning written solos for 30 years. Most of that time has been spent cracking my brains and fingers over CST, which I simply can't remember. I forget all the fingerings. I forget the chord, or the right scale. It's too cerebral for me, I guess, They say "get it in your fingers" but I started doing transcription and learning written-out solos a couple years back to "Get it OUT of my fingers." Honestly, I think I've made more progress in the last 2-3 years than in the preceding 30 (or 27 or however many) because when I learn a Jimmy Raney solo, I'm playing stuff I'd never have imagined or thought of on my own. I think it will help, but all the same, when I listen to most of you guys on this forum, I'm reminded that I'm too old and have to little discretionary time to ever reach the level of most folks on here.

That makes me oddly angry. I honestly wish I could get rid of all the CST for beginners rubbish out there.

Sounds like starting with actual music has done much more for your playing.

So I guess what I'm saying is, trying to "play what I hear" produced rubbish because I was hearing crap.
Immersing in listening didn't do much for that, just like looking at great art doesn't necessarily make you "see" artistically. Working with CST seemed to me to be working backward. Sure, I can use CST to explain what someone played and why it worked, but for me it was never generative. CST is interesting for analysis, but it never helped me think of what to play. But transcribing and learning written solos has actually started giving me some vocabulary. I am beginning to hear, for example, Jimmy Raney's lines in my head, whistling them when I'm feeding my horses and such. And the fingerings, that go places my fingers never thought to go, are beginning to work into my "noodling."

Have you tried singing those Raney solos all the way through? I mean that's the good stuff, right?

notation --> singing is transcription in reverse, no?

So... I'm just saying transcription and playing written solos is the only thing that has actually shown any hope of working for me because, one way or the other, it actually gets me playing stuff that sounds good as opposed to making a lot of rules and theory that aren't generative, only descriptive.

Oh sure. I would never claim otherwise. Working out solos has done so much for my application of knowledge. The problem comes when things become too dogmatic.

OTOH transcribing a whole solo and learning to play it back with no errors itself is not exactly learning to improvise, which is not to say it isn't valuable thing to be doing. On the contrary it's a VERY holistic practice activity.

For many people learning a whole solo is never going to happen, but a phrase here and there, fine. Interestingly, some of these players have gone on to be really great. Which makes me think - hearing a phrase and copying right away is more like improvisation, perhaps?

[emanresu]

Christian, transcribe Lawson's solo and record it. Cheer him up

[princeplanet]

Transcribing your favourite solos note for note is no different than the age old practice of Poets where they rote learn poetry word for word - as models. Just to know how it feels to deliver a perfect piece of prose is most instructing, the rhythm, the musicality, the emotional weight, the pauses...

Of course, no Poet ever plagiarised more than just a few words here or there from said "models", but instead they surely strive to attain the same high benchmark in artistry by way of example. Thorough knowledge of such examples has been an effective way to raise the bar in their own work, even if their own work ultimately differs in style. Wes learned a lot of CC note for note, but doesn't really sound like him, right?....

It's about the lessons you glean from the model you choose to absorb. You can teach a Parrot to recite Wordsworth...

[cosmic gumbo]

The Complete Transcription Process | David Liebman

[christianm77]

Yeah I think this is veering a little away from the op... transcription is cool but it doesn't have to mean

Dave liebmans process is cool too, but not everyone has gone through it.

Gary burton never transcribed but he probably didn't need to as he had naturally great ears, so could hear the music better than most of us.

Actually good transcribers are capable of taking music down almost in real time. They might not be able to play it but they can hear it all.

The only common factor seems to be that people should check out the music by listening to it on some detail. If you have to transcribe, so be it. If you want to learn to play the solo it will probably teach you a lot.

Otoh you might never learn a solo in your life and doesn't mean you'll not be a jazz player.

[John A.]

I should have been clearer. I haven't been transcribing or learning written solos for 30 years. Most of that time has been spent cracking my brains and fingers over CST, which I simply can't remember. I forget all the fingerings. I forget the chord, or the right scale. It's too cerebral for me, I guess, They say "get it in your fingers" but I started doing transcription and learning written-out solos a couple years back to "Get it OUT of my fingers." Honestly, I think I've made more progress in the last 2-3 years than in the preceding 30 (or 27 or however many) because when I learn a Jimmy Raney solo, I'm playing stuff I'd never have imagined or thought of on my own. I think it will help, but all the same, when I listen to most of you guys on this forum, I'm reminded that I'm too old and have to little discretionary time to ever reach the level of most folks on here.

So I guess what I'm saying is, trying to "play what I hear" produced rubbish because I was hearing crap. Immersing in listening didn't do much for that, just like looking at great art doesn't necessarily make you "see" artistically. Working with CST seemed to me to be working backward. Sure, I can use CST to explain what someone played and why it worked, but for me it was never generative. CST is interesting for analysis, but it never helped me think of what to play. But transcribing and learning written solos has actually started giving me some vocabulary. I am beginning to hear, for example, Jimmy Raney's lines in my head, whistling them when I'm feeding my horses and such. And the fingerings, that go places my fingers never thought to go, are beginning to work into my "noodling."

So... I'm just saying transcription and playing written solos is the only thing that has actually shown any hope of working for me because, one way or the other, it actually gets me playing stuff that sounds good as opposed to making a lot of rules and theory that aren't generative, only descriptive.

If I'm remembering correctly, you've written a number of posts about how there isn't a community of jazz musicians in your neck of the woods and you learn pretty much in isolation from other players (except online interaction)? If so, I suspect that's much more the root cause of your frustration than any particular auto-didactic tool. Jazz is an ensemble, collective form, and it's nearly impossible to learn it on your own.

In that light, maybe transcription comes closer to real musical interaction in that it involves studying phrasing, rhythm, and articulation, and interaction within the ensemble, which is where the art is. Complicated explanations and algorithms for identifying pitch collections in the abstract can be a distraction from that.

My own experience with CST is pretty limited. So grains of salt, but it just strikes me as one of several ways to figure out what pitches work over a given chord change. There are definitely simpler (for me, anyway) ways to do that.

John

[mrcee]

A lot of great singer songwriters have covered other people's material almost verbatim. If it's done without any reference to printed music or chord sheets in my book that's a form of transcribing.

I've never been much into transcribing but I'll do it now and then for a head I've got nothing on paper for but can remember or a melodic snippet I like. It's just another tool in the tool box. If it's a person's only source of solo ideas, well, so be it. I think it was Miles who said that no trumpeter has ever played a phrase that Louis Armstrong hadn't played. And on the other side of the coin there's people that won't cover anyone else's songs or even play their solo fragments in whatever genre. It seems a little limiting to me and I've always thought it was corny in a performance situation to announce a song as an Original. And there are quite a few top jazz artists that only do original material. We're talking about creativity and artistry. There's as many ways to do it as there are people.

[mr. beaumont]

A lot of great singer songwriters have covered other people's material almost verbatim.

That's like telling me the best french chefs make a shitty cheesesteak.

[mrcee]

That's like telling me the best french chefs make a shitty cheesesteak.

????????????

[lawson-stone]

That makes me oddly angry. I honestly wish I could get rid of all the CST for beginners rubbish out there.

Sounds like starting with actual music has done much more for your playing.



Have you tried singing those Raney solos all the way through? I mean that's the good stuff, right?

notation --> singing is transcription in reverse, no?



Oh sure. I would never claim otherwise. Working out solos has done so much for my application of knowledge. The problem comes when things become too dogmatic.

OTOH transcribing a whole solo and learning to play it back with no errors itself is not exactly learning to improvise, which is not to say it isn't valuable thing to be doing. On the contrary it's a VERY holistic practice activity.

For many people learning a whole solo is never going to happen, but a phrase here and there, fine. Interestingly, some of these players have gone on to be really great. Which makes me think - hearing a phrase and copying right away is more like improvisation, perhaps?

You've said a lot of good stuff here. I agree with it all.

I find when I've finished one of the Raney solos, I can sing it reasonably well. I'm not much of a singer, but I can usually whistle it and at least get the rhythm right and when it goes up, I do too, etc. I find singing is what happens at the end, not the beginning, at least for me.

And yes: Actual music. I'd rather learn a new tune than drill a scale any day. I think maybe a certain amount of drilling is needed, but I like the idea of learning some scale ideas by finding where someone has used a standard or other tune and composed a solo that puts me through the paces of that idea in the context of the tune. In the "Conti Ticket to Improv" Study Group here, I've enjoyed the way he takes about 5 or 6 ideas and just works them over again and again through 4 different standards. The solos themselves are not that memorable, but the way the same ideas can be used and moved, fit into different contexts, etc. is invaluable.

So really I agree with everything you've said here. I think CST is a good tool for explaining, in retrospect, how a solo "worked" but it hasn't helped me with generating ideas. For that I like stealing stuff from better players.

[lawson-stone]

If I'm remembering correctly, you've written a number of posts about how there isn't a community of jazz musicians in your neck of the woods and you learn pretty much in isolation from other players (except online interaction)? If so, I suspect that's much more the root cause of your frustration than any particular auto-didactic tool. Jazz is an ensemble, collective form, and it's nearly impossible to learn it on your own.

In that light, maybe transcription comes closer to real musical interaction in that it involves studying phrasing, rhythm, and articulation, and interaction within the ensemble, which is where the art is. Complicated explanations and algorithms for identifying pitch collections in the abstract can be a distraction from that.

My own experience with CST is pretty limited. So grains of salt, but it just strikes me as one of several ways to figure out what pitches work over a given chord change. There are definitely simpler (for me, anyway) ways to do that.

John

You have a good point here. I should also, therefore, be real cautious not to generalize my experience to others who might have better opportunities.

[m_d]

Sax player Bob Reynolds had a great podcast about transcribing, on his Soundcloud channel.
Some of his points were don't slow down, work a few notes at a time, don't necessarily write down.
Reynolds is as good as they get, won a Grammy last year. Worth checking out.

[Alter]

I ve found transcribing to be a great tool in so many ways. Learning to hear things, finding them on the instrument, playing top level material in the styles of particular players, learning how they develop solos, how they groove, etc.. Every period in my life that I ve heavily transcribed, I ve improved in heaps as a player.