Limitations of transcription

Something I've been thinking about recently is the limitations of analytical transcription. The kind of thing where you write down a solo and analyse what's going on harmonically, for instance.

Doing this with Hank Mobley recently, I was struck by the fact that the things that are most interesting about his solo - the phrasing and exactly where he was placing his notes etc - are things mostly poorly served by traditional notation.

OTOH Hank's note choices kind of resemble a David Baker how to play bebop book - so I can see why his work is often used as a textbook by learning sax players. The classical clarity and precision of his line playing makes it ideal for this.

But it's not where his creativity lies.

In writing down solos and analysing players in this way, we are forcing them through the prism of Western Music notation (which simplifies the rhythmic aspect) and our own sensibilities, which might be shaped by our education system.

The rhythmic aspects that can be written down are the most obvious - things like - 'oh here is a 5 on 4 grouping in eight notes' - etc... But doesn't touch on the detailed aspects of a players beat placement etc.

As a result the players that look most interesting on paper - for example the Coltrane solo on Limehouse blues - might tend to get favoured as 'advanced' or 'progressive' at the expense of someone whose subtly is primarily in the micro-rhythmic, phrasing or tonal sphere. In short, we turn jazz into classical music simply be writing it down.

In the long term this might encourage players within a system of education that encourages players to write solos down for assignments etc to become preoccupied with note choices etc rather than the other aspects.

Bear in mind I'm not knocking Trane at all - there's a lot in his playing that can't be written down as well. I'm also not knocking the practice of writing down solos - I think it's just something to bear in mind when doing it.

This is probably a pretty obvious thing, but it just stuck me.

Its the transcribing to the instrument that differentiates the process from classical procedure . I'm a fan of getting it all to the axe before writing it down, rhythm inflections, articulation etc. Notation is good - but I reckon put it at the end of the aural cycle.

As a player with limited abilty and time, and nobody at a similar basic level near me to play with, I end up practising and learning, mostly in isolation. I can honestly say that since I have got basic theory out of the way, transcribing (not writing down, but listening hard and learning) is by far the most fruitful exercise for me. It is the only way to challenge my ears rather than my brain. I dip into other stuff, but I almost always wish I had just spent the time listening and learning. However I am still a beginner so perhaps I'll change my approach in the future.

Impressive young jazz guitarist, Gabe Condon " This I Dig Of You" by Hank Mobley - YouTube

get off your seats look at that body language

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christianm77

Something I've been thinking about recently is the limitations of analytical transcription. The kind of thing where you write down a solo and analyse what's going on harmonically, for instance.

Doing this with Hank Mobley recently, I was struck by the fact that the things that are most interesting about his solo - the phrasing and exactly where he was placing his notes etc - are things mostly poorly served by traditional notation.

OTOH Hank's note choices kind of resemble a David Baker how to play bebop book - so I can see why his work is often used as a textbook by learning sax players. The classical clarity and precision of his line playing makes it ideal for this.

But it's not where his creativity lies.

In writing down solos and analysing players in this way, we are forcing them through the prism of Western Music notation (which simplifies the rhythmic aspect) and our own sensibilities, which might be shaped by our education system.

The rhythmic aspects that can be written down are the most obvious - things like - 'oh here is a 5 on 4 grouping in eight notes' - etc... But doesn't touch on the detailed aspects of a players beat placement etc.

As a result the players that look most interesting on paper - for example the Coltrane solo on Limehouse blues - might tend to get favoured as 'advanced' or 'progressive' at the expense of someone whose subtly is primarily in the micro-rhythmic, phrasing or tonal sphere. In short, we turn jazz into classical music simply be writing it down.

In the long term this might encourage players within a system of education that encourages players to write solos down for assignments etc to become preoccupied with note choices etc rather than the other aspects.

Bear in mind I'm not knocking Trane at all - there's a lot in his playing that can't be written down as well. I'm also not knocking the practice of writing down solos - I think it's just something to bear in mind when doing it.

This is probably a pretty obvious thing, but it just stuck me.

---

The writing down, for me, is just to keep track as I go...I'd never want to show it to anyone.

The biggest value in transcription--or stealing shit, as I call it, is all the close listening I have to do. And it's the cool rhythmic ideas that rub off most.

What Jeff said. Writing down is only for keeping it on file. Mostly I rely on my memory though. Also, it's so painful and tedious for me to convert sounds into notation that I try to avoid writing as much as possible.

I don't write anything down, I'm training my ears, fine tuning a lot of nuance.

If we're learning outside the system we have to come up with our. I have no reason to transcribe and put something on paper. The only time when I write something down is if it's a contrafact. It's a way to remember something if I'm spending a great deal of time on one song.
We all benefit from what's already been transcribed. No sense in saying it's useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gator811

Its the transcribing to the instrument that differentiates the process from classical procedure . I'm a fan of getting it all to the axe before writing it down, rhythm inflections, articulation etc. Notation is good - but I reckon put it at the end of the aural cycle.

---

That's a different practice exercise.

Actually, I tend to find for me that actually playing the stuff on the instrument is the easy bit (unless it's Bud Powell or something.)

The difficult bit for me is always remembering the phrase and being able to hear it clearly in my head, sing it etc. Probably varies from person to person...

OTOH if I put it on the instrument early in the process, if my recall of it is primarily kinaesthetic, I usually forget that solo 12 months on. Not a bad thing per se, but it's what happens.

But that's another thread. I'm really I'm talking about the practice of writing things down and analysing them which is what a lot of people do, especially for college assignments etc...

BTW if you don't write stuff down IMO it can hardly be called tranSCRIPTion. It's 'learning solos off the record.'

But that sounds a lot less official of course ;-)

Transcription is jazz-formal for lifting. See also "copping."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

Transcription is jazz-formal for lifting. See also "copping."

---

I don't want to quibble to much about this usage (which I think is a poor and confusing usage, but hey ho, this is from the same guys who brought us 'mixolydian' for a b7 scale, and we are stuck with it) - but we are getting away from the point which is that doing the specific thing I have outlined in the OP gives you one specific understanding of the music that is geared towards

Lifting or copping - the appropriation of lines from a transcription is not necessarily the same thing. It's possible to lern a solo and not appropriate any licks at all. You might ask - why? Of course, but its not a foregone conclusion.

When you have a solo done, what do you do with it? Just take licks and put them through the keys? Take them as licks you can use on certain chords etc? Or do you analyse the lines in terms of some theory? Or just move onto the next thing?

BTW See the thread on Mike Longo - Longo advocates 'transcription' but not 'lifting' - interestingly.

There is also the way to learn solos that does not involve your instrument - what Tristano taught.

So there are many filters to view music from. Not saying there are right or wrongs or answers, but questions you can ask when you are going about this type of work. I've experimented with a few different ways of doing things, and they have taught me different things.

Quote:

---

BTW if you don't write stuff down IMO it can hardly be called tranSCRIPTion. It's 'learning solos off the record.'

---

Yeah its a jazz appropriation - Leibman adopts it to mean both anyway.

I find it problematic to separate them but wouldnt ever invalidate either as an individual pursuit - it depends on what the end game is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gator811

Yeah its a jazz appropriation - Leibman adopts it to mean both anyway.

I find it problematic to separate them but wouldnt ever invalidate either as an individual pursuit - it depends on what the end game is.

---

I don't think any of it is invalid, but a consciousness of how you can approach is certainly a good thing.

Lifting licks and lines - well I don't really do that at the moment (unless it's a *really* cool lick.) For myself, I feel I need to get out of the imitation phase, not knocking it for some people, just speaking for myself. I would rather use 'transcription' as a way of modelling improvisation by ear, rather than using it as a way of getting language. I have enough 'language' by now.

I am reminded of a friend, a very good sax player who went to sit in at a top level jam in NY. After playing an old cat looks at him, sizes him up and says 'yeah I have all those records, too.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christianm77

I don't think any of it is invalid, but a consciousness of how you can approach is certainly a good thing.

Lifting licks and lines - well I don't really do that at the moment (unless it's a *really* cool lick.) For myself, I feel I need to get out of the imitation phase, not knocking it for some people, just speaking for myself. I would rather use 'transcription' as a way of modelling improvisation by ear, rather than using it as a way of getting language. I have enough 'language' by now.

I am reminded of a friend, a very good sax player who went to sit in at a top level jam in NY. After playing an old cat looks at him, sizes him up and says 'yeah I have all those records, too.'

---

Sounds like there are as many twats in the jazz world as anywhere else. I need to listen hard as I can't yet recognise chords by sound, and although I have sounds in my head I want to play, they are not clearly defined enough to get them on the instrument. For me it is a way of testing my ears and learning a "language". Now if I was a egocentric prat, I might want to sit in at a jam session and spoil everyones fun by making a horrible noise. It's my responsibility not to do that. However if I was a competent player that could happily join in without being too original, I wouldn't be messing up anyone's night, and anyone who made snide remarks would just be being an arsehole. Everyone has to start somewhere, and surely jam sessions need to be a place that the brilliant and the mediocre player can be accomodated, otherwise how will anyone learn other than at music school, which doesn't always produce the best players anyway. For example there was a time in my town when all I ever heard was "time no changes" at conservatoire nights which is both extremely exclsive and also excruciating for the listener if not for the performer but I suppose that is a different topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plasticpigeon

Sounds like there are as many twats in the jazz world as anywhere else. I need to listen hard as I can't yet recognise chords by sound, and although I have sounds in my head I want to play, they are not clearly defined enough to get them on the instrument. For me it is a way of testing my ears and learning a "language". Now if I was a egocentric prat, I might want to sit in at a jam session and spoil everyones fun by making a horrible noise. It's my responsibility not to do that. However if I was a competent player that could happily join in without being too original, I wouldn't be messing up anyone's night, and anyone who made snide remarks would just be being an arsehole. Everyone has to start somewhere, and surely jam sessions need to be a place that the brilliant and the mediocre player can be accomodated, otherwise how will anyone learn other than at music school, which doesn't always produce the best players anyway. For example there was a time in my town that all I ever heard was "time no changes" at conservatoire nights which is both extremely exclsive and also excruciating for the listener if not for the performer but I suppose that is a different topic.

---

These clubs will have some association with the schools one way or another.
The only place to start is school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plasticpigeon

Sounds like there are as many twats in the jazz world as anywhere else. I need to listen hard as I can't yet recognise chords by sound, and although I have sounds in my head I want to play, they are not clearly defined enough to get them on the instrument. For me it is a way of testing my ears and learning a "language". Now if I was a egocentric prat, I might want to sit in at a jam session and spoil everyones fun by making a horrible noise. It's my responsibility not to do that. However if I was a competent player that could happily join in without being too original, I wouldn't be messing up anyone's night, and anyone who made snide remarks would just be being an arsehole. Everyone has to start somewhere, and surely jam sessions need to be a place that the brilliant and the mediocre player can be accomodated, otherwise how will anyone learn other than at music school, which doesn't always produce the best players anyway. For example there was a time in my town when all I ever heard was "time no changes" at conservatoire nights which is both extremely exclsive and also excruciating for the listener if not for the performer but I suppose that is a different topic.

---

OK, a couple of things to put the story in context - 1) the 'old cat' was held in high regard by the sax player, 2) the sax player is a top sax player on the UK scene, a vet with plenty of confidence who has worked with top players in NY as well.

He chose to take it as a lesson.

As I am sure he'd remind us, that's the way the elder players often taught - laconic, sometimes hurtful, but with a 'ring of truth.' They didn't mince their words and as far as they were concerned, if you get hurt by comments like that you should find another line of work. It was part of their world. Think of Miles, for instance.

I personally think that I would have been crushed if someone had said that to me, but I also think I would have picked myself up and realised the importance of that lesson. It's a big thing. If someone says this stuff to you, they are testing your mettle as well. Are you serious? Or do you want people to tell you are great all the time?

Think about it... It's no disrespect either - it takes work to get that far. I'm sure if he hadn't done that work, an elder would have been quick to observe that fact too. It's actually - 'OK I hear your reverence for and knowledge of the music, but who are you?'

If someone said a laconic, harsh comment like that to someone just getting together, they would be a twat. But those same people are usually full of kindness and encouragement in those situations (not always though lol!)

When you are trying to make it as a pro, the ultimate compliment is to be taken seriously. This can hurt. But you need to get rid of your ego, and fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christianm77

After playing an old cat looks at him, sizes him up and says 'yeah I have all those records, too.'

---

Best riposte deserves five pounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by destinytot

Best riposte deserves five pounds.

---

Shame you haven't listened to them m*th*rf*ck*r?

Yeah, but I slept at a Holiday Inn last night...

That's where I've been going wrong then

I "lift" when I hear something that catches my ear and I want to recreate it in other situations, but I can't figure it out how to get the sound.

So, for example, I recall hearing, Rodney Jones, I think, take a nice solo with Maceo Parker and something caught my ear. When I finally figured it out, it was an arpeggio on a tritone sub. Not that exotic, but it sounded great to me. Armed with that much knowledge, I was able to use the device in other tunes and, eventually, was able to hear it in my mind without thinking about keys or intervals or theory.

Sometimes, I can figure out what the guitarist was thinking, down to the likely fingering. Other times, it remains a mystery, why those notes? How does that lay well on guitar? If I can figure out what the player seemed to be thinking, then it's easier for me to recreate the sound.

Agreed 100%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gator811

Its the transcribing to the instrument that differentiates the process from classical procedure . I'm a fan of getting it all to the axe before writing it down, rhythm inflections, articulation etc. Notation is good - but I reckon put it at the end of the aural cycle.

---

I don't see notation at the end of the cycle....

More like a triangle with ears, instrument and notation at different points. You can work on strengthening any one of those sides.

Attachment 45987

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christianm77

I don't see notation at the end of the cycle....

More like a triangle with ears, instrument and notation at different points. You can work on strengthening any one of those sides.

Attachment 45987

---

Sure -the voice should be in there too. As I said I wouldnt invalidate any of them - as each point in the cycle serves a function- but when it comes to improvising there is also a tradition of 'copping' stuff from other players that goes back to the roots of the music - advocated by some luminary teachers and players. More abstract thinking - the kind of thing Longo talks about has been part of the developmental curve of most players - usually at a more advanced stage, but the role of notation in that isnt really clear.
Notation historically is a means of recording - and of course its a means of delivering information. But in both it's limited in what it can deliver - especially in an era where the means of recording music is so at hand.
It can be advantageous if one wants to abstract the music down to unaffected information - and I also think transcribing to notation supports better sight reading too.
As far as formal transcription as assignments for music students - as a teacher I have set many of these assignments over the years - as part of a jazz theory programme. But unless one is actually doing it in class ( which was a big part part of my Conservatory training) , there are so many ( technological) ways students can shortcut the process these days - not all of course, but if it comes down to grades for a degree, well some go the easy route.
Not only that but the internet is now rife with transcriptions of solos - finding one that hasnt been posted becomes more and more challenging - its always disappointing to find an assignment that has been copied from an internet version which is full of wrong notes! . But if a student has to perform a solo - or as in most cases part of a solo -there are no shortcuts - even if they use notation to get there. And all of the information is experienced in aural and tactile form. At a developmental level - getting something from there back to notation is just as valuable - and you know the student has, at least for the time being internalised the music.

Ears/voice is a close link - closer than many think (because they have been conditioned into thinking you can't sing.)

For a pianists this triangle looks closer to a straight line, BTW, because notation and instrument map very closely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djg

no. romanticizing this kind of arsehole behaviour only gives jazz a bad name. if you approach a player (at a jam session of all places) and basically tell him that he's nothing but a copycat, you're not some elder statesman giving an upcomer some tough love. you're just a twat.

---

Absolutely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djg

no. romanticizing this kind of arsehole behaviour only gives jazz a bad name. if you approach a player (at a jam session of all places) and basically tell him that he's nothing but a copycat, you're not some elder statesman giving an upcomer some tough love. you're just a twat.

---

When Russell Malone was an up and coming player he got onstage with Jimmy Smith. Jimmy called the song Laura knowing Russell probably didn't know it. He fumbled his way through it.
That was the lesson. No snide remarks.

One of the worst jam session behaviors I've heard of was a story someone posted on this forum a while back. If I remember the story right a good guitarist was going to sit in for a tune and the leader, a well known musician, called Giant Steps in some weird key. The guitarist had a hard time and afterwards the leader laughed and said "Welcome to the big leagues!" imo that's just big time BS and is one reason why Jazz isn't that popular. I doubt that the leader of that session is playing big time venues for $200/ticket even if he's got a name. There's a story about a jam session at a Greenwich Village club in the 40s. There were some strong cats on the stand including Charlie Parker. The guy telling the story years later was a college kid from like North Dakota who played the trombone. They let him on the stand and he started to play tailgate trombone in an inexperienced manner. Some guy threw him off the stand and he went over and was dejectedly putting away his horn when Parker came over and said "Don't feel bad kid. You play alright it's just that we're doing something different. Keep practicing. I got thrown out of plenty of jam sessions when I was coming up." That's the way a lot of the greats are.

Coltrane called Giant Steps an academic exercise as in, what was I thinking.

My jazz teacher was a student of Tristano's and we did a specific system: take 10ish solos, learn to sing one a week along with the record. then go back and sing them without the record (very difficult). then, learn them on your instrument.

Lennie had his students do this first with either Louis Armstrong, Charlie Christian, or Lester Young. After you did 10 of those, you could pick Bird, Fats Navarro, or Bud Powell. I did Charlie Christian and Bird, and I still can sing all those solos pretty well.

As a result of doing things this way, I didn't ever write down solos until later, because it wasn't necessary. But, one thing I've noticed since, is that writing down solos has really improved my reading ability quite a lot.

I think the listening/singing aspect is so important. Much more important than the notes themselves...it's the feel, the rhythmic inflection.

You do enough of that, it'll translate to your instrument, it almost has to...it becomes the music you hear in your head. I heard someone say it once, and I repeat it all the time...Jazz has to be the music that plays in your head.

But seriously, take a tune, and just play garbage notes, random anything...but play it with jazz rhtyhm, triplets, syncopation, and record it. Not bad, right? I might need to do a little recording like that for giggles and post it here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djg

no. romanticizing this kind of arsehole behaviour only gives jazz a bad name. if you approach a player (at a jam session of all places) and basically tell him that he's nothing but a copycat, you're not some elder statesman giving an upcomer some tough love. you're just a twat.

---

May hijack the thread a bit.

My experience is this:

1. Some guys won't say anything, some will. How nasty it comes out has nothing to do with their skill. Rather it has to do with their personality. That is, the nastiness is completely superfluous.

2. Some players make everybody on the bandstand relax and play their best. Others sow nervousness or conflict. Again, nothing to do with their skill level. I have played in jams with some world class players who made me feel great and allowed me to play my best (and I'm nowhere near that level). Other players, even amateurs make me nervous. I believe it's personality not musical ability.

3. I've heard my share of nasty comments. I don't condone that behavior. That said, I've learned to pay close attention to them because, sometimes, maybe even often, the message contains something you need to know about your playing. In a way, it can be a gift -- because nicer people might not be willing to tell you something you need to hear.

4. Speaking more generally, sometimes, if you can handle the blows to your self-esteem, you may be able to tolerate an unpleasant situation that will make you grow as a player.

5. Or, you can find some other way to achieve the goal. I don't think there's anything essential about building up musical-emotional scar tissue.

Yeah rpjazzguitar.... (BTW the thread has been derailed into a discussion of how feedback should be given.)

I would never express myself in that blunt kind of way, but I am a product of my times. I neither want to throw cymbals at anyone nor have them thrown at me so to speak.

But the truth remains that sometimes a hurtful or snide comment can actually be really useful. Far more than a compliment or a carefully couched non-judgemental feedback. For instance - a fantastically rude internet troll recently set me on a path to correct my left hand technique for instance, and it might just be one of the best things to happen to my playing. A friend or someone from this forum might have said - pay him no attention. But he was right - and pretty funny to boot (at my expense.)

Some people have given me (to me) hurtful remarks that 10 years later I realise - damn, they were right, and I no longer hate them. If they'd not got under my skin I might have ignored them.

And sure there's a nice way of putting it, but you know some people are crap at people skills or come from backgrounds that were tougher and more outspoken but it doesn't mean they don't have ears. It also doesn't mean the info must communicated this way, but it was part of the culture. Not even a hurtful thing.

If I was to say something like 'hey man - you have done so much work - I can hear Lester Young, Cannonball Adderly and Sonny Stitt (say) - but what's your voice?' (assuming a position of authority.) The point still stands ...

Actually there is no 'nice' way to say because it is deeply challenging and cuts through to the centre of what art is about. Who are you?

The point being that a certain approach to transcription can result in that type of playing. It's a stage you pass through right?

If you are a serious jazz musician, these are precisely the sorts of questions you need to be brought into contact with every day. You can't be doing it for the money. (And it's perfectly possible to be a professional musician with loads of gigs and no voice of your own - or an amateur with an original voice.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djg

'yeah I have all those records, too.'

"so, don't you like them?"

"cool, what's your dj name?"

"yeah, so does kenny g"

---

DJ Wh1PLA$H - Whiplash Trailer Parody - YouTube

What one runs into sometimes is simply the bitter part of someone's own disappointment in the expectations they have of the music and their own careers.
Its going to happen if you travel and encounter lots of musicians and different playing situations. You might also find yourself that close to being one of those people if something crosses you the wrong way - we are all human. After being on the receiving end of this a few times over the years I think carefully about what I say - especially to younger players. Theres usually nothing to be gained by being an a**hole.

regarding feedback, this is a tough thing to discuss because culturally (and generationally) it varies so much. I would have no problem with an elder statesman making a remark like that to me, and would take it as completely constructive. but, like everyone else, I'm a product of my environment. In many cultures that kind of comment is simply not ever appropriate.

In the context of the NYC jazz scene, especially with older musicians who are as a rule, a lot more surly to each other and everyone else, that kind of comment is just part of the game. If you want to spend time hanging out with older musicians, you get comfortable with that kind if thing quickly.

Not everyone's cup of tea, surely. But, I think it's impossible to talk about that kind of comment outside the cultural context it was given (which christian did a great job of explaining, and why I feel I can comment on it).

Just because everyone else has said it in this thread, I’m going to say it, too: twat. Thank you.

My mediocre jazz guitar duo was playing a gig for nobody at a “spiritual” bookstore. An old dude who plays sax out on the street, with a hat on the sidewalk for donations, came in for a drink of water. We struck up a conversation, hinting that maybe he’d like to play a tune with us. We were on break so he hadn’t heard us, but he declined to play anyhow. His reasoning was that he had come up under the tutelage of Joe Henderson and it would be disrespectful to Joe if he should play with us. He drank his water then went back outside with his donation hat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevebol

DJ Wh1PLA$H - Whiplash Trailer Parody - YouTube

---

(Spurts coffee and scrambled egg across table...)

Waaaankaaaarrr!!!!