-
Right there is the absolute best argument for transcribing. Three of my all time favourite improvisors, all started out stealing lines, and, given time, all found their own unique voice despite having to overcome the "soundalike" problem. Trouble is it takes a busload of talent and commitment to transcend...
Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
Question for a lot us remains: "Are we happy to be reasonable soundalikes, or be better at being ourselves "?
For Sonny, Jackie and Freddie it used to be a question of competing for attention in order to make a living. Now it's more about the artistry and the satisfaction derived by the pursuit of it. Or something...
-
05-29-2018 12:55 AM
-
Well I think this may be putting the cart before the horse.
There are few thing more enjoyable as a player than taking a bit of time to sit down with some favourite recordings and copy the bits that catch my ear, and few better ways to learn about music.
-
One thing about transcribing/copying good solos is that for a beginner, it's the fastest way to make their playing improve a great deal.
If you're studying with a teacher who doesn't emphasize the importance of transcribing/copying good solos, find another teacher.
-
What if you're getting exactly what you'd hope for, more, and being challenged to imagine things you couldn't have done on your own by a teacher who doesn't copy solos? I was looking over this thread and it seems that those in the Transcribe corner are always the ones that make blanket statements that imply This is the ONLY way to go. Any useful tool can open doors if it's clear the reasons why and how you use them. Originally Posted by sgcim
I don't begrudge people who advocate for transcription but why the heavy handed binary thinking that those who don't push transcription heavily are just wrong and should be discounted?
David
-
Yeah I think David (as he usually does) has a point.
But anyway, I think there's a language barrier. The only absolute universal (and who knows there may be exceptions here) is that you must listen to music to be a musician. A great musician is a great listener.
'Transcription' as we call in edu-speak is merely a very heightened and specific type of listening.
In a strict sense if we trans-scribe (i.e. write down) we actually simplify our musical memory into dimensions best recorded by the European music notation system - a lot of nuance gets lost. So in some ways though this may aid analysis of harmony and other quantifiable elements the most personal aspects of the player - their sound and feel, may get lost. (Hence the development of players who are most notable for what they play, not how they play it.)
For instance, the note choices of Dexter Gordon and Hank Mobley may often be very similar - but I'm not going to mistake them on record.
That's a drawback of transcription of the academic 'do 32 bars of Parker for an assignment' type. Transcription of this kind is a limited practice activity best undertaken by intermediate students how need to learn the ropes (i.e. undergrad music students etc.)
I do think that a player should always be working on their ears and their ability to audiate what they hear. Transcription in the looser sense of copying phrases and solos on your instrument is obviously a very good and holistic way to do this.
Also, there is a road less taken in learning to sing entire solos (Tristano style.) This I think works the musical memory and imagination away from the instrument. Personally I find once a student can sing something, putting it on the instrument is relatively easy, and something easily practicable. If you can't do this quickly and intuitively, it's a good idea to practice it.
Personally I feel the conceptual only approach is a complete dead end... But OTOH the transcription only approach may threaten to make you a mere imitator if you don't have someone to kick your ass about it (I have stories about it.)
Depends how you do it.
-
Just wanted to chime in about the singing thing...I can't even express how helpful that's been to me.
To the point now of when I'm copping stuff off records, I don't bother writing anything down until I can sing it, at least rhythmically.
-
I often think... why wouldn't anyone WANT to transcribe? How is that not natural for a musician to find out what their inspirations played exactly, how did they think?
A beginner kid coming to a lesson wants to play their fav riffs, tunes, their ears are not developed enough yet, so they ask the teacher to show them. But there is excitement! Then the kid grows, able to do it on their own, then gets into jazz, the whole world of music is wide open, copy this, copy that, not because your told to do it, but because it's so much FUN!
so I'm sorry, if it's not fun, there is something missing... I do think teachers who say no, you don't have to transcribe are full of it, but more importantly, if you have to ask this question, if you haven't already done it on your own just because there's little kid in you who's excited to find out... Honestly ask yourself, do I look for validation of my own laziness or maybe I'm just too scared to face my limitations? That would be an honest question.
-
I'm talking about beginners and rockers trying to learn how to play jazz. My first teacher taught me theory, technique and tunes, but never talked about copying/transcription. The bass player in my HS 'jazz' group took a tape of us playing to his teacher who was a jazz guitarist. He said I sounded like I was playing 'club date' jazz (aka wedding jazz). He was right. My first teacher mainly played weddings. Originally Posted by TruthHertz
One day I decided to transcribe every note of a cut from a Kenny Burrell record. I wrote out every note on the record. When I went in for my weekly lesson, my teacher was astounded by the progress I had made in only one week.
Previously, I'd copied some stuff from Coryell, Johnny Mac, etc..., but I didn't realize that that stuff is not jazz.
-
When I was a kid, I liked stand-up comedy. I had a few records, and my friends had a few others. In retrospect, it was a small pool of material: Mel Brooks & Carl Reiner, Bob Newhart, Robert Klein, Bill Cosby, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Cheech & Chong. I memorized lots of routines. I enjoyed learning them "note for note" and it was fun to "riff" with friends. (I've done something similar with still other friends where you had to speak in lines from songs or from movies.This was fun. (Later, Bill Hicks and Jerry Seinfeld would come into the mix while Cheech & Chong dropped out.)
My approach to music is related to this. Not perfectly but importantly. I like lines. (Even when I was a kid schoolmates remarked that I was forever quoting someone or other. It was true.) I like lines in music. I like to learn to play on the guitar certain lines that I loved hearing on records. I like to learn to recite lines from books and plays that appeal to me. (Once, in Metaphysics & Ontology class, Dr. Jean Meade, on whom I had a great crush, was talking about two types of time---kairos and chronos---and before you know it, we were going back and forth with the soliloquy of Macbeth that begins, "Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow..." It's a moment whose memory I still cherish.)
I like fitting a line into an unexpected place, or how one line calls to mind another one. I like how Herb Ellis can shuffle around lines and make them sound good over and over.
Anyway, learning lines is what I like to learn. (And that includes melodies. Learning "Out of Nowhere" lately--what a great tune!) That's what I'm interested in. Even my favorite compers are making lines in their comping. I love the lines. It's good to know what makes some lines work (and how a line may work in another harmonic context), but I love to play the lines like I love to sing the songs. And sometimes I make up songs and sometimes make up lines.
Wallenda said, "The wire is life" For the most part, for me, "The lines are jazz."
-
I am glad that works for you, and that you enjoy transcribing so much. But don’t assume that “laziness” or “fear” is why others don’t share that joy. Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
I started as a child playing classical guitar. That is the ultimate of playing other musicians’ lines. I am not a lazy musician and I was not afraid of other composers music. Of course I enjoyed the accolades of teachers and celebrated by friends and family for my technical abilities to recite and perform work. But whatever part of the brain that is responsible for memorization is not the same as the part that leads to creativity and joy —at least for me.
I need to know the why, and to use that knowledge to create my own music. Obviously knowing how and why an artist created their lines often means i recreate the same lines. But if I don’t get there from understanding first just copying the lines brings little knowledge and even less joy.
I get a LOT more out of talking to an artist who says, “at the end of a turnaround I like to lead back to the head with a run of an augmented arpeggio starting a half step below my harmonic target” than to just copy a line I thought sounded cool but did not understand.
I don’t assume that people who transcribe lack creativity or the ability to understand music. I wish I shared that joy of transcribing you talk about. But it is also true that getting little joy or learning from copying lines is not necessarily a sign of laziness or fear.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
Originally Posted by 2fivefun
The ones who could not scribe, did not transcribe.
Wes could not scribe or transcribe, yet learned entire Charlie Christian solos note for note, and was paid to play them in public.
Is that your real question, or are you teasing another question which is "shall I learn to successfully express the jazz language by listening to the masters alone, or shall I both listen and play?
-
Again I think the word Transcribe is quite a bad one.
Learning solos or lines by ear... or maybe just the oral tradition.
-
I started with Classical guitar too, so I know what you saying. And I see you're bringing the point of understanding the lines rather than blindly copying... In general I agree with that, but maybe I'm wrong, I hear you saying transcribing often leads to blind copying, and that's not necessarily true. Originally Posted by rlrhett
In previous post here I mentioned that analyzing is pretty much a must if you want to develop your concept. But I believe getting the stuff under your fingers and in your ears first, and then explaining it. It in no way messes with your creativity, it only helps it! Avoiding learning other peoples lines is not gonna bring you closer to discovering your own voice. It's an illusion. It's the same as I hear some musicians saying learning the theory might affect their originality or something...
So yeah, you can copy a line that sounds cool AND understand what you are doing, there is no contradiction whatsoever.
-
Yeah there are a lot of kids playing whole solos with the record on YouTube.
I can’t see the harm in it, but it’s frustrating when they don’t know any tunes to play with a real human being.
It’s all good though. Balance.
Good players have usually done quite a bit of ear learning, unless they have a great ear and can already hear what’s going on in music.
Weaker players can usually benefit from doing some, even a little. So it’s normally pretty safe advice for an educator to give.
I can usually hear if someone has done much ear learning. They tend to play more musically and intuitively, and with more rhythm. Obvious really.
They can be very licky players, which is not itself a bad thing per se, but something I was keen to move away from myself. Usually at that point if they are interested, the teacher can introduce more concepts and ideas to move them beyond licks and canned material.
Theory means nothing if you don’t know how it sounds. That’s the bottom line for me. Check out the thread about hearing b5. That’s the type of thing players should look into imo.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
The word 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. I have transcribed a few solos and songs. I have books of transcriptions. So it seems that people are transcribing out there all right. It requires skill and hard work. Those are two reasons why some people pretend it means something else.
-
Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
In that sense, then, transcription may not be such an important part of the history of learning to play jazz. Indeed, it might be a better question to ask which famous jazz musicians DID do a lot of that. I don't think Wes or Charlie Parker Louis Armstrong or Charlie Christian or Joe Pass or Herb Ellis or George Benson, or Barney Kessel did much of that. Kessel was a big-time studio pro, who could certainly WRITE music---some of his own tunes still sound good---but I don't know that he transcribed much in the sense you mean, though I know from his PLAYING that he learned a lot of phrases and rhythms from Charlie Christian records. (His "Salute to Charlie Christian" is a testament to that.)
Learning by ear, learning to PLAY music you hear, play it on your instrument with the proper feel and rhythm, is far more important than writing it down. I think this is what many players mean by "the oral tradition," and I think it was what Clark Terry meant when he encouraged students to "imitate, assimilate, and innovate." (<<<< That sounds like Charlie Parker's path! He learned to sing and play Lester Young's "Shoeshine Boy" solo note for note but I don't think he ever transcribed it.)
Wolf Marshall presents an interesting case. He's transcribed Wes, Kenny Burrell, Joe Pass, Grant Green, Pat Martino, George Benson, Howard Roberts, Charlie Christian, and a host of other players (-including rock and pop players) but his own jazz playing is not, well, he's got chops, but there's no market for transcriptions of his own solos, let's put it that way. (No offense, Wolf. Or friends of Wolf---and I know he has friends here.) His transcriptions are very good. World-class, even, but his own jazz playing is not.
There is also David Baker. He was a gifted teacher and trombonist. I believe he was in an accident that hampered his playing. But he could play. He composed a lot, and he transcribed a lot and also analyzed solos he transcribed. So I con't think one precludes the other. Steve Kahn has transcribed a lot. He's certainly a major player.
-
Transcribing entire solos can be somewhat useful. Good ear training. Maybe some people enjoy it. I certainly did enough of it in other styles of music.
I think there's a much much greater value in selecting the lines and bits you really like and really want/intend to put into your own playing.
When's the last time any of us memorized 3 or 4 paragraphs from a book we were reading so we could recite them in public. We build vocabulary one word, one phrase at a time.
-
Writing down everything on paper does not help with the playing per se IMO. I've done plenty of written down transcriptions, and back in the day I couldn't even play everything I transcribed. But I liked the process anyway, I felt like I'm proving to myself I'm a proper musician lol! Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
But if you don't write it on paper it doesn't change anything, as long as you can play it right is all that matters. And I'd still call it transcribing!
-
Yea pretty much. These days even if I'm copying the whole solo for practical purpose I might modify a few licks here and there to make it more comfortable for my style and technique, and keep the phrases I love intact. Then I can perform the whole thing on a gig, and make it more personal. I don't see no harm in it! Originally Posted by DS71
I've done it recently with some Django solos. Please forgive me Djangophiles!!
-
Yeah, I'm always amazed when I hear professional transcribers like WM play their own stuff. Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
It kind of proves the point of what I said in my last post, that transcribing is a tool you can use as a beginner to get a long way in a short time, but no matter what you do, you're still the same person, no matter how much you've transcribed.
My two fave improvisers, Phil Woods and Bill Evans only copied/ transcribed one or two solos when they were beginners, but the work they did after that had nothing to do with copying/transcription.
Today there are many transcribers of their work, but none of them come near the originals when they play their own stuff.
-
Actually, it's more complicated. The meaning of the word 'transcribe' as we have used it here is specifically a jazz edu one. (And like a few jazz edu terms IMO pretentious and misleading one. See also Mixolydian.) Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
In the classical music world, transcribe means something quite different, taking music on instrument and writing it for another - as in Segovia transcribed the Bach Cello Prelude for guitar.
What we call transcription is usually called dictation.
-
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. Originally Posted by christianm77
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.
-
Speaking of singing solos, I can't do that. I just can't sing. I whistle a lot though, something I learned from my father. If I hear a line, I can usually whistle it, but you couldn't recognize it from my singing. I inherited my mother's singing inability, unfortunately.
-
I really don't understand the point of this question. Some guys transcribe, some guys don't, we all learn by listening, this is an aural art form and listening, copying repeating is how we learn any language and music is indeed a language.
-
1. Transcription is writing it down, dictation is too, but more immediate. There are many, many things which are too complicated for dictation.
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?
3. A music master that I studied with briefly advocated that a serious musician should strive to build the capability to do the following:
1. Be able to play what you hear
2. Be able to write what you hear
3. Be able to hear what is written (without or before playing it)
Does every instrumentalist need to master all three skill sets? The answer is, it depends. It depends on one's goals and the requirements and demands placed on them in pursuit of their goals. Casual player? Pro player? Band leader? Arranger? Composer?
4. It's 2018 and there are lots and lots of transcriptions out there. Aspiring jazz musicians have a lot of material to work with. That reduces the need to be a transcription machine. But what if there is something great and new and it's not transcribed (yet)?
5. Transcription is also helpful when/if one steps away from the material in question for awhile.
Having it written down can help one get back in gear much more quickly than relying solely on memory.
6. Finally, if one's primary or solitary goal is to become an effective jazz improviser then the ability to play what you hear is paramount. Even then however, and for the Imitate-Assimilate-Innovate approach, transcription is valuable. It helps with part 2 - Assimilate. In the Assimilate phase one needs to analyze - not just ape. Written music supports analysis effectively because one needn't necessarily deal with performance issues such as fingerings, position/string sets etc. Their focus can be on melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic analysis.
Reply With Quote
mclaughlin sound here
Today, 12:26 AM in The Players