Which famous players didn't transcribe?

[MarkRhodes]

2. When jazz instructors, including the great masters, advise others to transcribe they ALSO mean to play it! They DON'T mean transcribe it and let it sit on the shelf gathering dust. Does anyone really take their advice that way?

You walked into this one when you limited "transcription" to "writing it down." If that's all it is, and all that "transcription" means (-which is your claim here), then that's all you are asking someone to do when you say transcribe something. There are people who can transcribe well--and fast---but can't play at all. (I had a guitar teacher who knew a guy who wrote out Coltrane solos, page after page, dozens of pages, and my teacher could sing from those written scores, but the guy who wrote the scores couldn't play saxophone at all. Or guitar. He had perfect pitch. It was easy for him to do because it was easy for him to hear. But he couldn't play any of it.)

You actually mocked as ignorant (!) those who took "transcribe" to mean "learning to play on one's instrument."

But really, I think we all agree that what matters most is being able to play jazz well on one's instrument.
No one really cares how a good player got that way while he's playing; you're too busy enjoying the music.

If transcribing a lot helps player A get there, great.

If transcribing doesn't help player B get there, well hurray for whatever does. Carol Kaye, for example, doesn't see much value in transcribing but this may be in part because she has an unusually good ear and didn't need to do it. In any case, she didn't do much of it and doesn't recommend it to her students; and dozens of her former students have had successful professional careers, so I think it's clear she's a good teacher. Frank Vignola is another world class player AND teacher who doesn't stress transcribing. (He stresses learning tunes and learning the fingerboard.)

I was listening to a Bruce Forman podcast this morning where he was discussing 10 "mother tunes" he thought guitarists should learn because they teach one so much about the music. He stressed listening to great versions of the tune. But when asked about learning solos off the records he said, "Not as much as you might think."

I'm sure some good teachers stress transcribing and they'll never get any grief from me.

[mr. beaumont]

Jeez, jazz players don't always use common accepted meanings of terms, get over it. If we did, we'd be punching seafood every time we hit a bad note and throwing our car keys in a fishbowl at the beginning of a big band gig.

[christianm77]

Interesting... I remember what we called dictation was writing music down without playing it first, just by listening. That was part of solfege class in my college. Only we weren't allowed as much as even singing it back. Use your 'inner ear' the teacher would say. Could be harmonic or melodic, or both.

Not much use for me in jazz as far as the lines go, I always wanted to get straight to guitar, get it in the fingers. But a useful skill figuring out harmony on the spot though.

Yeah I mean the centrality of the score to the Western concert tradition is obvious.

Playing phrases back on your instrument isn’t a skill that’s developed so much afaik

[christianm77]

You walked into this one when you limited "transcription" to "writing it down." If that's all it is, and all that "transcription" means (-which is your claim here), then that's all you are asking someone to do when you say transcribe something. There are people who can transcribe well--and fast---but can't play at all. (I had a guitar teacher who knew a guy who wrote out Coltrane solos, page after page, dozens of pages, and my teacher could sing from those written scores, but the guy who wrote the scores couldn't play saxophone at all. Or guitar. He had perfect pitch. It was easy for him to do because it was easy for him to hear. But he couldn't play any of it.)

You actually mocked as ignorant (!) those who took "transcribe" to mean "learning to play on one's instrument."

But really, I think we all agree that what matters most is being able to play jazz well on one's instrument.
No one really cares how a good player got that way while he's playing; you're too busy enjoying the music.

If transcribing a lot helps player A get there, great.

If transcribing doesn't help player B get there, well hurray for whatever does. Carol Kaye, for example, doesn't see much value in transcribing but this may be in part because she has an unusually good ear and didn't need to do it. In any case, she didn't do much of it and doesn't recommend it to her students; and dozens of her former students have had successful professional careers, so I think it's clear she's a good teacher. Frank Vignola is another world class player AND teacher who doesn't stress transcribing. (He stresses learning tunes and learning the fingerboard.)

I was listening to a Bruce Forman podcast this morning where he was discussing 10 "mother tunes" he thought guitarists should learn because they teach one so much about the music. He stressed listening to great versions of the tune. But when asked about learning solos off the records he said, "Not as much as you might think."

I'm sure some good teachers stress transcribing and they'll never get any grief from me.

Yeah tbh at this point for me learning to play melodies well by ear is actually more of a challenge than copping lines off records.

[Jazzstdnt]

You walked into this one when you limited "transcription" to "writing it down." If that's all it is, and all that "transcription" means (-which is your claim here), then that's all you are asking someone to do when you say transcribe something. There are people who can transcribe well--and fast---but can't play at all. (I had a guitar teacher who knew a guy who wrote out Coltrane solos, page after page, dozens of pages, and my teacher could sing from those written scores, but the guy who wrote the scores couldn't play saxophone at all. Or guitar. He had perfect pitch. It was easy for him to do because it was easy for him to hear. But he couldn't play any of it.)

You actually mocked as ignorant (!) those who took "transcribe" to mean "learning to play on one's instrument."

But really, I think we all agree that what matters most is being able to play jazz well on one's instrument.
No one really cares how a good player got that way while he's playing; you're too busy enjoying the music.

If transcribing a lot helps player A get there, great.

If transcribing doesn't help player B get there, well hurray for whatever does. Carol Kaye, for example, doesn't see much value in transcribing but this may be in part because she has an unusually good ear and didn't need to do it. In any case, she didn't do much of it and doesn't recommend it to her students; and dozens of her former students have had successful professional careers, so I think it's clear she's a good teacher. Frank Vignola is another world class player AND teacher who doesn't stress transcribing. (He stresses learning tunes and learning the fingerboard.)

I was listening to a Bruce Forman podcast this morning where he was discussing 10 "mother tunes" he thought guitarists should learn because they teach one so much about the music. He stressed listening to great versions of the tune. But when asked about learning solos off the records he said, "Not as much as you might think."

I'm sure some good teachers stress transcribing and they'll never get any grief from me.

I didn't walk into anything and I didn't mock anything or anyone. Thin skin?

Transcription has a definition. I simply object to the claim that it's definition is whatever a person wishes it to be, and then compounding that by promoting the fallacy. Same as I would for any other term that students are trying to understand. That is all.

And to Jeff's point about the jazz or "street" use of terms, I get it. I've been around jazz, blues, rock, etc. for decades. I have logged my years in the street, use slang and can swear dirty rotten trash with the worst of 'em. So What?

Ironic isn't it, that some claim jazz not to be a folk music, even though they acknowledge it began in the brothels of New Orleans. Some want to term it "America's Classical music". Well, it's conversations like the one we're having here - where people promote and ruthlessly defend inaccuracy, informality, looseness, uneducated slang, etc. and chafe at any/all attempts to persuade to the contrary.

I guess we could talk about the country & western player's theory terms. That might have some similarities.

Jazz a folk music? Damn straight it is.

[pcsanwald]

For myself, learning tunes from records, as opposed to lead sheets, has done far more for my playing transcribing solos. Learning to hear melodies in terms of degree, and then working out what harmony is underneath it (which will vary depending on recording) has really done wonders for my ears and my playing in general.

Out of all the great jazz musicians I've met or taken a lesson with, quite a few of them probably didn't transcribe that much. And might even struggle to play certain solos that you'll hear people tear up on youtube. But every single one of them, without exception, clearly had the ability to learn a tune (melody/harmony/rhythm) by ear, recognize alternate changes, etc.

[mr. beaumont]

I didn't walk into anything and I didn't mock anything or anyone. Thin skin?

Transcription has a definition. I simply object to the claim that it's definition is whatever a person wishes it to be, and then compounding that by promoting the fallacy. Same as I would for any other term that students are trying to understand. That is all.

And to Jeff's point about the jazz or "street" use of terms, I get it. I've been around jazz, blues, rock, etc. for decades. I have logged my years in the street, use slang and can swear dirty rotten trash with the worst of 'em. So What?

Ironic isn't it, that some claim jazz not to be a folk music, even though they acknowledge it began in the brothels of New Orleans. Some want to term it "America's Classical music". Well, it's conversations like the one we're having here - where people promote and ruthlessly defend inaccuracy, informality, looseness, uneducated slang, etc. and chafe at any/all attempts to persuade to the contrary.

I guess we could talk about the country & western player's theory terms. That might have some similarities.

Jazz a folk music? Damn straight it is.

Absolutely it's a folk music.

(Ain't never seen no horse play "Donna Lee")

I think you're getting a little bent out of shape about the whole thing though. "Promote and ruthlessly defend innacuracy...uneducated slang...chafe at attempts to persuade to the contrary...."

All I'm saying in my post is "this is how it is." It's been that way, it's likely not changing, and I'm not bothered by it. I'm not sure why anyone would be.

[Jazzstdnt]

Absolutely it's a folk music.

(Ain't never seen no horse play "Donna Lee")

I think you're getting a little bent out of shape about the whole thing though. "Promote and ruthlessly defend innacuracy...uneducated slang...chafe at attempts to persuade to the contrary...."

All I'm saying in my post is "this is how it is." It's been that way, it's likely not changing, and I'm not bothered by it. I'm not sure why anyone would be.

I'm not bothered by it unless people get self righteous about it. Maybe I'm having a flashback to my early jazz ed days and some of the faux hipster attitudes. Oh well.

Will it change? Yeah, at least a little, and over time, IMO. There are a lot of hep cats teaching in the university realm (as well as playing now). The university domain forces instructors to engage in theoretical rigor in a way that is repeatable, measurable and stands up to deep analysis and intellectual scrutiny. I mean, how many times have people lamented on this forum how jazz is moving/has moved to the university and out of the clubs and street, etc.?

BTW - nowhere have I advocated for lots and lots of transcribing. I listed some benefits. I don't particularly cherish my transcription assignments.

[MarkRhodes]

Jazzstdnt, Post #67:

The word [“transcription”] is fine. It's misuse may not be so fine,like any other word that is ignorantly misused. It means exactly what it says.

Any teacher who assigned a transcription to me or advised that I transcribe, meant what they said.


Jazzstdnt,Post #77


When jazz instructors, including the great masters, advise others to transcribe they ALSO mean to play it!

[christianm77]

Transcription has a definition. I simply object to the claim that it's definition is whatever a person wishes it to be, and then compounding that by promoting the fallacy. Same as I would for any other term that students are trying to understand. That is all.

And yet, I find myself in the position of using all of these terms both accurately and inacurrately, cos that's what everyone else does.

TBH, I think it's important for the teacher to take the student through the steps of the process in the lesson. Some students I am satisfied are already working along the right lines (it's easy to tell) - others need some support in learning the process

I mean if you just sing a bebop line such as Scrapple to them, or play the recording, with the expectation that they be able to learn it in the lesson (well enough to go away and master it in their own time), the point is usually made. Or have the same thing done to you!

Anyone who went through the steps you outlined above would learn something for sure.

But there's something very grand about the term 'transcription' with it's specific meaning. Do your transcription of a solo, and hand it in for marking by next Friday.

When Peter Bernstein talks about not having transcribed much, that's because he is using that (academic) definition. You'd be crazy to imagine he hasn't listened to and analysed the music in great depth on an ad hoc basis by ear, as we realise from listening to him talk about his process. TBH I model my process on his, because I love the lack of rigidness in his approach.

But most young players seem to use 'transcription' and 'ear learning' interchangeably. Also bear in mind there are many professional musicians, for whom reading and writing music, hearing it and playing it are essentially interlinked. I know guys who can transcribe as fluently as they read flyshit on big band and theatre gigs, and for them this division between these areas are moot.

You'd be equally mistaken to think that learning about the music from the records is anything but a step on the road to being a mature musician within this tradition. Dexter Gordon for instance complained about French musicians having essentially only learned to play the music from records.

And to Jeff's point about the jazz or "street" use of terms, I get it. I've been around jazz, blues, rock, etc. for decades. I have logged my years in the street, use slang and can swear dirty rotten trash with the worst of 'em. So What?

Ironic isn't it, that some claim jazz not to be a folk music, even though they acknowledge it began in the brothels of New Orleans. Some want to term it "America's Classical music". Well, it's conversations like the one we're having here - where people promote and ruthlessly defend inaccuracy, informality, looseness, uneducated slang, etc. and chafe at any/all attempts to persuade to the contrary.

I guess we could talk about the country & western player's theory terms. That might have some similarities.

Jazz a folk music? Damn straight it is.

The Wagnerian elevation of the artist that begun probably with Mozart, I think is really important in understanding the social aspect of everything that followed and the cumulation of the idea of musical art as having prestige in itself, and the essential invention of the idea of classical Art music.

We can see this played out in interesting ways in jazz, later on rock music, and even hip hop now... The terms 'serious music' and 'art music' as opposed to 'popular music' have fallen out of favour, probably when everyone realised no one actually danced to jazz any more :-)

There's potential for rich discussion on what makes something a 'classical music' as opposed to a 'folk music' - aside from social and class aspects, I would find a musical exploration interesting. The existence of a literature is obviously hugely important in Western classical, but jazz grew up with recording which means it is not exactly a folk music in the same way that Irish folk music was, for instance.

[Jazzstdnt]

Good post Christian. I was with you for at least half of it anyway.