Transcribe No More! (by Mel Bay)

[Jonzo]

I don't think there is any basis for this statement. You make it seem like "the academics" are this evil, calculating group whose sole reason for existence is to make life difficult for students. In my experience this is not so. The instructors I had during my undergrad were all helpful, inquisitive, top-notch professionals and the last thing they wanted to do is churn out robots.

The basis for my statement is a professor at a prominent music college who wrote "As a student I was part of the reaction against chord-scale theory". He then goes on to discuss the importance of transcription, along with arpeggios, voice leading, and other more "intuitive" methods. It seems to me that he is describing a broad movement against what was common practice.

"Ready, Aim, Improvise", if I recall correctly, also discusses chord scale theory as an attempt by universities to make jazz studies academically rigorous. I believe he is being somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

To me, extensive written transcription seems like a nod to academic rigor.

Again, I am not against learning by ear, but I don't think a strong argument has been made for writing out lengthy transcriptions with the goal of it improving your playing. Like chord scale theory, it gives you an additional intellectual layer of understanding that may or may not be the most efficient route to better playing.

I am glad that your personal university experience was not one of pedantry for the sake of pedantry, but apparently there is a basis for my claim.

[jasonc]

I think Jake is right. Transcription is not the only way you get good at playing but it is a great tool. There is really no mystery to becoming a great player. I'm not talking great as in changing the face of western music but rather be able to acquit yourself admirably in any number of musical situations. It's just like Jake said....It's time on the instrument, playing music. The one thing I think a lot of people forget about is the fact that the guys like Bird and Coltrane etc. spent A LOT of time playing. They would be in a band that would play matinee shows then a dinner show then a later show and then spend all night playing in jam sessions with musicians who where better than them. How could you not get good playing that much? It's much like weight loss in that it's rather simple in theory (just burn more calories than you consume) but hard work to actually put into practice.

[Jonzo]

I think optimal practice is still plenty mysterious. 100 years ago elite runners got fast by running fast a lot. They were "The Greats" of their time, but no serious athlete today trains the way the way they did back then.

Because of the money in professional sports, and it's competitve, quantifiable nature, a lot of research has been done to separate fact from folklore. On the other hand, music is still being practiced the way it was 100 years ago. I think that much of our pedagogy will eventually be found lacking, even if it is what "The Greats" did.

No disrespect to "The Geats" intended. I think they're great!

"Do what the greats did" is where the discussion starts; not where it ends.

[jasonc]

I think optimal practice is still plenty mysterious. 100 years ago elite runners got fast by running fast a lot. They were "The Greats" of their time, but no serious athlete today trains the way the way they did back then.

Because of the money in professional sports, and it's competitve, quantifiable nature, a lot of research has been done to separate fact from folklore. On the other hand, music is still being practiced the way it was 100 years ago. I think that much of our pedagogy will eventually be found lacking, even if it is what "The Greats" did.

No disrespect to "The Geats" intended. I think they're great!

"Do what the greats did" is where the discussion starts; not where it ends.

That's fair enough. Music, however, isn't quantifiable. But if you want to play fast then practice playing fast. If you have a hard time with a set of changes then practice those changes. If you have a hard time with a particular scale then practice that scale. If it all seems hard then pick one or two things and work on them until they don't seem as hard then start on something else. You know what I mean? I'm not trying to be flippant about it but sometimes it's just that simple. The hardest part, I think, is being honest enough and critical enough with your own playing to figure out what you need to work on.

[MarkRhodes]

I agree that time on the instrument is necessary but it is no guarantee. Some people practice hours a day but they practice nothing but scales and arpeggios. They play them well---fast, accurate, good timing--but they knew few tunes and their solos sound like technical exercises. Their problem is not neglect of the instrument but too much practicing of rudiments and too little of, well, jazz!

It's a dirty little secret--and applies to much besides music--but you can work at something for DECADES and never get really good. Conversely, and to the amazement of those who weren't so quick outta the gate, some people are gigging within a year of getting their first guitar. Wtf???? But it happens. And some are amazing in just a couple years---I think Charlie Christian falls into that category.

[Jonzo]

That's fair enough. Music, however, isn't quantifiable.

The end result is not quantifiable, but many of the subgoals that lead to proficiency are. If learning chords is one of your sub-goals, all other things beign equal, learning them more efficiently is better.

[MarkRhodes]

That's fair enough. Music, however, isn't quantifiable. But if you want to play fast then practice playing fast. If you have a hard time with a set of changes then practice those changes. If you have a hard time with a particular scale then practice that scale. If it all seems hard then pick one or two things and work on them until they don't seem as hard then start on something else. You know what I mean? I'm not trying to be flippant about it but sometimes it's just that simple. The hardest part, I think, is being honest enough and critical enough with your own playing to figure out what you need to work on.

Google "Dunning-Kruger effect" and read about the inability of the incompetent to realize their incompetence! Figuring out what one needs to practice, and how much, requires a level of knowledge that beginners and intermediate players do not have. They really don't know what is good for them. (They are like kids in a kitchen---they only know what they want to eat, not what they should eat.)

In one sense what you say is true and easy, but it's sort of like telling a beginning songwriter, "Write things people want to hear!" Well, yeah, but how does one go about that? When you've written a hundred songs you know a lot about that, and you can say, "I write things that sound good to me" and that's true but it is wholly unhelpful to someone who hasn't got the hang of it yet!

[paulkogut]

Without a doubt, the printed transcriptions available these days are a valuable resource. But I see two pitfalls for an aspiring serious player if they're relying on them solely as an alternative to do it yourself transcribing.

First off, the muscles flexed in transcribing, being able to hear pitches and notate rhythms, are used in other situations. What happens when a singer asks you to write some arrangements based on her favorite CDs? There's a difference between not wanting to transcribe and not being able to.

Also, when you rely on commercially prepared transcriptions, you're limited to what's available. If a particular line from Wes, chord voicing from Jim Hall or intro from Ed Bickert speaks to you, but isn't in a book, you're out of luck.

[jasonc]

The end result is not quantifiable, but many of the subgoals that lead to proficiency are. If learning chords is one of your sub-goals, all other things beign equal, learning them more efficiently is better.

Well sure. I'm not arguing for inefficient practicing, obviously. You're right some things in music are quantifiable, which is one of the things that made practicing classical guitar easier than jazz (for me anyway), and can and should be practiced in a measured way. Metronome settings for scale practice etc..

[jasonc]

Google "Dunning-Kruger effect" and read about the inability of the incompetent to realize their incompetence! Figuring out what one needs to practice, and how much, requires a level of knowledge that beginners and intermediate players do not have. They really don't know what is good for them. (They are like kids in a kitchen---they only know what they want to eat, not what they should eat.)

In one sense what you say is true and easy, but it's sort of like telling a beginning songwriter, "Write things people want to hear!" Well, yeah, but how does one go about that? When you've written a hundred songs you know a lot about that, and you can say, "I write things that sound good to me" and that's true but it is wholly unhelpful to someone who hasn't got the hang of it yet!

First off, let me apologize to you Mark. I'm sure my punctuation is horrid. As a writer, that probably bugs the crap out of you . I think we can all agree that there are just going to be some people for whom no amount of practice will help. Just like I will never be a star athlete no matter how hard I train. However, I would get better at athletics if I trained in a meaningful way. Yes it's difficult to figure out what one needs to work on. That's why I said it was the hardest part. But I think my basic premise is sound. You have to work on things that you are not good at, which I feel is the "secret" to practicing. I know it sounds self-evident but I know a lot of people who will just sit and practice the stuff that they always practice and not get any better. I know because I was that person for years.
You said that sometimes they don't know what is good for them.....well then they could listen to players they admire and transcribe their solos...

[mr. beaumont]

You haven't added anything here to support your premise. You simply repeated it.

There are people called educational psychologists who test theories about learning. Often they do not play instruments at all, but they know how to set up an experiment that will tell you whether writing transcriptions is a more efficient learning method than reading from transcriptions.

I suppose you wouldn't be interested in their findings, because they can't play shit.

Also, since someone will say want to say that music is not quantifiable, then you really can't argue that one method is better or worse than another.

I think there's a pretty big difference between people who have studied how people learn and cats teaching jazz. I'm a teacher, i took three classes in ed psych
That doesn't make me an educational psychologist.

All I'm saying is when it comes to learning jazz, I like to make sure the person i am learning from can walk it. If a jazz teacher tells me transcription will make me understand music, then I want to see he understands music...if he tells me it's gonna make me play better; then i'd like to hear him play.

We need to be conscious of what our sources offer us.

[Jonzo]

I think there's a pretty big difference between people who have studied how people learn and cats teaching jazz. I'm a teacher, i took three classes in ed psych
That doesn't make me an educational psychologist.

All I'm saying is when it comes to learning jazz, I like to make sure the person i am learning from can walk it. If a jazz teacher tells me transcription will make me understand music, then I want to see he understands music...if he tells me it's gonna make me play better; then i'd like to hear him play.

We need to be conscious of what our sources offer us.

The problem is that there are plenty of people who can play jazz well who disagree on how to best learn it. So eventually you have to analyze the proposition yourself, which is what the OP was doing.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Charlie Banacos was pretty much THE jazz educator, when he was alive.
I don't know if he came up with this. Doubt he did, but he did use it on most of his students. My teacher told me about this one.

Sources say he plays a I-IV-V-I cadence, although my teacher works me with just a middle C note. After that, he plays any other note, chromatic or diatonic, and you're expected to know what it is. It's a relative pitch workout.
After you get one note down, he plays double stops, and you're expected to nail both notes. When it gets to three notes, you have to identify all three notes, chord, and chord quality. Same with 4, 5, 6 and so on.
Someone here posted a doctoral dissertation someone on Charlie Banacos' education techniques. The dissertation quotes Banacos saying that an ear that can get to the 6 pitches at a time in this exercise is a professional level ear.
However, that's just half of the exercise, it gets to 11 notes at a time, and what you do at that point is identify the missing note, rather than identify what's in there. Most people put it down at the 6 note point though.

Thanks.

I have some questions regarding this exercise, though. Learning to distinguish the 12 notes of the chromatic scale in relation to a key is definitely an excellent skill. But what of, say, learning them in relation to different chord qualities- major 7th, diminished, etc? And what of other possible key; the exercise as you have described is built around a major progression- what about minor ones?

Thanks for the clarification, and for putting up with questions from someone who is relatively new at the whole jazz thing.

[jtizzle]

It's not about relating it to tonality. Rather than relative pitch. The I-IV-V-I cadence just works in order to get the root pitch down better than just a simple C pitch. My teacher and I use a middle C without any chords, just the pitch, since I'm already advanced, I can take a pitch and relate it to C, regardless of what scale it is.

This exercise is just about individual relationships. Hearing two notes, and being able to identify the interval, therefore, the pitch of the second note.

Your goal with this is to be able to be playing a gig or a jam session. Look at the lead sheet (or if you know the tune, better), know the first chord, which for the case of this example would be C (think Green Dolphin Street), and with that C be able to go anywhere, knowing what you want.
Or maybe while you're soloing, you know you're playing over a C major (again, think Green Dolphin Street), and be able to instantly recognize what the piano player or the bass player are playing, and therefore you can react to what they are doing while accompanying you.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Thanks again for the further clarification.

As a player in many genres, I try to relate everything I play down to the chord that's being played at that moment and the way that chord changes and so on and so fourth- I'll think "Okay, I hear a second over this chord, which moves into the 13th of the next chord" or thereabouts.

[jtizzle]

It's good to be able to get out of the chord progression, though, to free up your ear and get out of all the diatonic stuff for a bit.

Read more on the Banacos stuff, here's the document I mentioned:

Charlie Banacos

[Kojo27]

I learned Bird a bunch years back, not from reading the Omnibook, but from copping from records. You own it that way, it's a slow process, where you go to bed at night humming the lines in your head, and you wake up in the morning still humming them.... The phrasing, the swing feel, the 'X" factor - you don't get that from any Mel Bay book. Making up your own lines is what I try to do now, but without a grounding in bebop as played by the masters, my lines would be guitar-centric, which always sounds dull to me....

Cool. I do wonder about those guys who transcribe sheet after sheet of solos (some of which they don't even like!) and stand back in admiration of their ever-growing stack, then sit to play guitar the same way as yesterday and last year.

But I'm not averse to transcription entirely. I haven't done it ("scribe" part) yet, but I'm going to give it a shot. And the point you make is one I like. I can't imagine how one could become more intimate with another musician's creative "force" than by transcribing the other's improvised music. With a Mel Bay transcript, and with a very strong will and great concentration, IMO, we could probably come close. But most don't have this strong a drive, this level of concentration.

So yes - this reason seems a good one to me. To "own" the thing, as you say. The Mel Bay sheets won't grind the sounds into your head, (unless maybe you're an extraordinary sight-singer... And you aren't likely to go to bed with the solo playing away in your head.

There was another BIG reason for my liking the idea of transcribing, but I can't remember what it was! (My memory ain't the best lately.)

Thanks, PP.

[jasonc]

That is exactly why I rarely write them down now. I found that in my zeal to have a finished transcription I didn't actually learn to play it. You can get a section down well enough to write it out then you move on to the next then by the time you're done you can't even play the transcription you just did! Now if you learn by playing through from the begining every time you get a new phrase down. By the time you're done you've played the solo a gazillion times and you KNOW it. Another thing to think about if you work off of written transcriptions is that the better your reading becomes the less the material you're reading stays with you.

[mr. beaumont]

A couple of more thoughts on this thread, as it's evolved a bit...

1. I was the guy who rather harshly brought up the "can't play shit" line...I'll defend that one till I turn blue in the face. In no way am I suggesting that a great teacher has to play at a ridiculously high level--hell, the person I learned the most about jazz from didn't even play the guitar...I'm talking specifically about the content--what people tell you an excercise or activity will make you better at...If somebody tells me _________ is going to make me PLAY better, then I better see it in their playing--just as, as I said before, if someone says this ________ will improve my understanding, I better see some evidence that they understand it too.

This is why I never suggest that transcription will make you a better player...it will make you a more informed player. This seems obvious, but the distinction needs to be made.

2. I don't think the end goal of transcription is to "own" a solo. I think very few jazz players will ever sit down and play somebody else's solo, even just for kicks at home. I think the goal of true, "writing it out" transcription is fourfold-- copping favorite licks, practice at music writing, ear training, getting inside the head of another player as far as motifs and structure.

3. One thing we never bring up when we have a discussion about the "greats" is that when these guys were coming up, jazz was IN. It was cool music, it was music you could make a living playing...a lot of these guys got right into jazz when they started playing....how many of us can say that? I know I had played the guitar for five years before I even listened to any jazz, and almost ten years before I tried playing it...but what did I do in those formative years?--You bet--learned stuff off records. The hours I spent as a young'un were copping Jerry Garcia and Duane Allman--not Miles and Trane...but that's how I started off...I think that's how a lot of us started off...so we get to the point of learning jazz, and that part of our development seems to have passed...

4. But has it? I teach a lot of beginners and folks NEW to jazz...and I always tell them that if they are serious about jazz, they're going to hav e to accept that the languae they're now dipping into is very different than what they've grown accustomed to. I advocate--and I'm sure folks will disagree--that it's important to get back into a "beginner's mind" when learning jazz after having played the guitar for a while beforehand...We break things down--look at chords a whole new way--put away box patterns of scales and pentatonics for a good while...and yes, we ear train and lift licks from records. Part of what's so difficult about jazz early on is just hearing it accurately...

[mr. beaumont]

As I mentioned earlier, Jim Hall claims to never have transcribed.

On "Inspirations and Dedications," there's a long Blues tune where in the liners, Jim mentions he plays a Charlie Christian solo note for note.

He also mentions it was the "first solo he learned" IIRC.

So I think Jim is taking the literal definition of "transcribing" when he said he didn't...but it sure seems he spent some time listening and lifting some sounds...

[paulkogut]

Jim also plays Charlie Parker's bridge of Scrapple note for note. And the way his playing incorporated concepts of Bill Evans and Sonny Rollins after working with them indicates he's got some system of taking the music he hears and absorbing it.

I think the important issue here is to see the difference between "All things being equal, I prefer X to Y" versus "I'm going to only do X because Y is too difficult for me". But depending on where jazz guitar fits into your life (career artist, weekend gigger, home hobbyist) compromises become necessary.

[jtizzle]

On "Inspirations and Dedications," there's a long Blues tune where in the liners, Jim mentions he plays a Charlie Christian solo note for note.

He also mentions it was the "first solo he learned" IIRC.

So I think Jim is taking the literal definition of "transcribing" when he said he didn't...but it sure seems he spent some time listening and lifting some sounds...

I don't remember exactly where I heard it from, I think my old teacher did tell me that, or that the he only transcribed that one Charlie Christian solo or something..
But I had also forgotten about Scrapple.

[paulkogut]

I've never known Jim to talk about transcribing, but I've never heard him specifically say he never did it, either. I have heard Mick Goodrick say he never transcribed, he thought it more important to come up with your own vocabulary. But the next thing he said was people he respected, like David Leibman, swear by it, so it up to each individual to decide their own approach.

[JakeAcci]

If we really want to be scientific about this stuff, I think it's quite difficult.

I think it's very hard to isolate what objectively causes improvement. Anybody who has any experience creating or critiquing a scientific study would probably agree that objectively determining what makes somebody a better improviser is almost impossible.

It's also hard to define improvement or skill level. That's a whole other thread. Oh, that we already had, hah.

Some people advocate just sitting and playing, exploring, and following through with curiosities instead of developing structured practice routines and looking at it like homework.

Another perspective on transcribing is that it's not a workout to improve a muscle, but something that some of us feel compelled to do just because we are so curious and interested in a certain recording.

Because it's really hard to be scientific, maybe the best approach is to take lessons, read good books, and when developing a practice routine or determining what to practice, just go with what feels right. Maybe something off the beaten pat will lead to unusually positive results.

[fep]

Because it's really hard to be scientific, maybe the best approach is to take lessons, read good books, and when developing a practice routine or determining what to practice, just go with what feels right. Maybe something off the beaten pat will lead to unusually positive results.

Regarding practicing guitar: I feel like I'm at an age, 54, where doing what makes me the happiest is probably appropriate. At some point delayed gratification stops making sense.