How important is to transcribe jazz solos?

[Christian Miller]

Of course you cannot see any contradiction with your opinion. That is your manner. I tried to help answer your questions. I have two degrees in art history and a PhD in architecture. I spent years in a university faculty that contains an art school (and a music school). I know artists. I thought I might make a useful contribution to the discussion by contrasting how music and art are taught. But I forgot that your reckons are more valuable than anyone's knowledge and experience. My bad. Sad face.

I'm still not getting it.

You said that art schools emphasised conceptual creativity above technical traditional painting skills, and you basically confirmed it. I said that art AFAIK has largely moved away from paining and sculpting etc (although I am sure this is not universally the case), but there are areas where trad art craft skills - painting and drawing and so on are still central. Illustration is an example (others have mentioned comics) - my sister is a professional illustrator and graphic designer so I know how much work she's put into these skills.

So, none of this conflicts with what you said as far as I can tell.

Am I missing something?

there are areas of music that are kind of more analogous - a lot of modern electronic composers are far more concerned with textures and so on than traditional harmony in a way which overlaps with sound design (in fact my local conservatoire stopped teaching counterpoint till someone kicked up a fuss.) John Cage of course is the classic example of a more conceptual composer and that was quite a few decades back.

OTOH jazz when it comes down to it is quite craft oriented still. More so than ever, perhaps.

You and I may differ in an interpretation or ideology of where this leads the creative process, but I don't remember you making an assertion about this. As far as I can tell we are simply stating facts which do not appear to be in contradiction.

[Christian Miller]

For what it’s worth, it seems to me that Christian is expressing some regret that imitation isn’t more encouraged as a way to learn. And that folks seem more inclined to chase originality at the expense of really studying by way of imitation.

I'm not even sure that's what I'm saying. Not all my favourite musicians have done this type of imitation.

I do know that the idea that imitation in some way diminishes creativity is not supportable from the evidence. (Logically it doesn't matter if there's a counterexample, because all you need is one example to disprove the assertion, and we have LOADS.)

Is imitation in tension with creativity? Harder to show, but I don't believe so. I think imitation can absolutely lead to greater creativity in surprising ways.

This type of imitative study is obviously very much encouraged in most jazz schools. I think this may have had the effect of discouraging people as jazz school players are often thought of as 'samey' - but it's fairly easy to show that this was not the case historically.

I’m just a rube with no PhD, but that actually sounds an awful lot like what you’re saying too. That you regret how art schools seem way more caught up in theory and working in weird media than in imitating the masters. You mention how it seems like students of this generation seem not to be able to see the way earlier generations could. Anyway … I could be wrong, but actually it sounds like y’all are kind of saying the same thing.

One key element in music education is the way in which conservatoires, which were historically trade schools (for children originally) have slowly mutated into liberal arts institutions, which ups the need for written work. I don't know if this analogous to the Arts more broadly speaking, but it wouldn't surprise me.

My MA supervisor was always on about this, he introduced me to Polanyi's concepts of Tacit (and Explicit (intellectual) Knowledge, which as far as I can see is at the centre of all of this. Explicit knowledge is what the liberal arts institutions have traditionally been about, and the structures inherent in those institutions tend to at least nudge things in that direction. In stark contrast in musical performance, gigs have a direct and often harsh way of teaching you that Explicit knowledge is irrelevant and only Tacit knowledge counts in that world. Every time I get my arse kicked on gigs, which is often, it is for this reason. Music doesn't care if you have a PhD in Musicology. (Not that there aren’t many great performing musicians who happen to have PhDs)

And yes I do regard ear learning as a great way of acquiring this Implicit knowledge, in particular the swing, feel and phrasing and so on, which is both impossible to notate and resits conscious analysis anyway. Just ask a folk musician! (Even score based classical musicians must learn implicit lessons on interpretation by ear. Rubato is a good example)

An extreme and stark example - I have a friend who was head of music performance at a university who was required to essentially defend performance as part of the music course at the university to the Dean who is a historian. In the end the performance course was canned.

Anyway, this is not a dichotomy. I don't see Explicit knowledge as the enemy - indeed Explicit knowledge can even become Implicit - but its fetishisation will sideline what is important about music if allowed. Trying to be intellectual about the creative process is to me part of this.

[Litterick]

Just for reference, I’d like to cite back to another really helpful thread on this forum:

Sense of humor.Coolness.

You are wasting your time trying to provoke me. Why not just let it go?

[Moonray]

I just waded through the most recent posts to this thread and can only reach one conclusion.
Shut up and play your guitar!

(Goes for me for sure as well, mind you I’m 76 and haven’t got time to waste)

[Litterick]

For what it’s worth, it seems to me that Christian is expressing some regret that imitation isn’t more encouraged as a way to learn. And that folks seem more inclined to chase originality at the expense of really studying by way of imitation.

I’m just a rube with no PhD, but that actually sounds an awful lot like what you’re saying too. That you regret how art schools seem way more caught up in theory and working in weird media than in imitating the masters. You mention how it seems like students of this generation seem not to be able to see the way earlier generations could. Anyway … I could be wrong, but actually it sounds like y’all are kind of saying the same thing.

No, I did not say that. I observed that theory is of central importance and that imitating is frowned upon. The last thing I would want is for art schools to return to imitation of the old masters. Art is not like that any more. It has not been like that for over a century.

Working in weird media does not bother me. Artists have been doing that for a long time. Oil painting was once weird.

I do think it is regrettable that students are not taught to draw, but drawing is not the same as imitating. Drawing is about seeing. Copying works of art is only worthwhile if you intend to make a living from copies and pastiches.

[pamosmusic]

No, I did not say that. I observed that theory is of central importance and that imitating is frowned upon. The last thing I would want is for art schools to return to imitation of the old masters. Art is not like that any more. It has not been like that for over a century.

Working in weird media does not bother me. Artists have been doing that for a long time. Oil painting was once weird.

I do think it is regrettable that students are not taught to draw, but drawing is not the same as imitating. Drawing is about seeing. Copying works of art is only worthwhile if you intend to make a living from copies and pastiches.

Ah okay. See it actually sounded like you were saying the opposite. This makes sense now.

[Litterick]

I see a lot of younger artists choosing to attend ateliers and participate in online courses focused on building real skills. This came about in part because of the fairly robust animation and comic book industries.

I think I understand why Wayne Thiebaud liked to say he was a painter, and not an artist.

Several ateliers were created in the eighties and nineties by artists who disapproved of modernism entirely, and wanted a return to the late nineteenth century academic styles. The enthusiasm for comics and animation among the young is an interesting phenomenon, particularly since they are mostly interested in Japanese styles. Recently, I saw a teenage girl in a public square, drawing a portrait of her friend in a manga style. It was skilful, but derivative — which is the limitation of imitation.

I think Thiebaud was trying to make us see beyond the subject — to appreciate the painting for itself, not as merely an observation.

[pamosmusic]

My MA supervisor was always on about this, he introduced me to Polanyi's concepts of Tacit (and Explicit (intellectual) Knowledge, which as far as I can see is at the centre of all of this. Explicit knowledge is what the liberal arts institutions have traditionally been about, and the structures inherent in those institutions tend to at least nudge things in that direction. In stark contrast in musical performance, gigs have a direct and often harsh way of teaching you that Explicit knowledge is irrelevant and only Tacit knowledge counts in that world. Every time I get my arse kicked on gigs, which is often, it is for this reason. Music doesn't care if you have a PhD in Musicology. (Not that there aren’t many great performing musicians who happen to have PhDs)

And yes I do regard ear learning as a great way of acquiring this Implicit knowledge, in particular the swing, feel and phrasing and so on, which is both impossible to notate and resits conscious analysis anyway. Just ask a folk musician! (Even score based classical musicians must learn implicit lessons on interpretation by ear. Rubato is a good example)

Right. This too makes sense.

[pamosmusic]

The enthusiasm for comics and animation among the young is an interesting phenomenon, particularly since they are mostly interested in Japanese styles. Recently, I saw a teenage girl in a public square, drawing a portrait of her friend in a manga style. It was skilful, but derivative — which is the limitation of imitation.

So I might argue that theory is kind of a form of imitation in and of itself in the arts. Generally we’re talking about principles derived from the study of a large body of past work. So would theory be any less likely to produce derivative work?

In music I really don’t think so. It’s a combination of the two that’s important probably. Imitation without theory teaches the vocabulary but no grammar. Theory without imitation teaches grammar but no vocabulary. And the imitation is where all the nuance of the language lives in this case—inflection, articulation, accent. The theory is incapable including all that. Not sure if that’s true for art but I wouldn’t be surprised if there might be something similar.

[pamosmusic]

I just waded through the most recent posts to this thread and can only reach one conclusion.
Shut up and play your guitar!

I can walk and chew gum, dig?

(But should I? ?That’s a different question.)

[Litterick]

I'm still not getting it.

You said that art schools emphasised conceptual creativity above technical traditional painting skills, and you basically confirmed it. I said that art AFAIK has largely moved away from paining and sculpting etc (although I am sure this is not universally the case), but there are areas where trad art craft skills - painting and drawing and so on are still central. Illustration is an example (others have mentioned comics) - my sister is a professional illustrator and graphic designer so I know how much work she's put into these skills.

So, none of this conflicts with what you said as far as I can tell.

Am I missing something?

Yes. You are confusing imitation with craft. I was responding to Mr. Beaumont's comment about his impressionist copies — products of imitation — and asking whether imitation was still part of musical education. You interpreted that remark as being about craft skills. They are not the same. One could learn how to imitate the Impressionists without learning how to make anything new — if one learned nothing else. Learning how to draw and paint is learning how to see one's subject and how to respond to the qualities of the medium one is using — pencil or paint, or anything else. I think it regrettable that students are no longer taught to draw in art schools, but I do not mourn the passing of copying.

I said art schools were all about theory — not 'conceptual creativity'. I think too much emphasis is put upon learning theories of art and philosophy, rather than on making. I do not believe art has moved away from painting and sculpture. They are still practised, but not in traditional ways. This is not a bad thing — we should not be tied to the past. But that is perhaps where art differs from jazz.

[Christian Miller]

I just waded through the most recent posts to this thread and can only reach one conclusion.
Shut up and play your guitar!

Tbh I think guitarists are too quick to play! It’s a trait of ours. We make noise without intention and clarity.

[pamosmusic]

Yes. You are confusing imitation with craft. I was responding to Mr. Beaumont's comment about his impressionist copies — products of imitation — and asking whether imitation was still part of musical education. You interpreted that remark as being about craft skills. They are not the same. One could learn how to imitate the Impressionists without learning how to make anything new — if one learned nothing else. Learning how to draw and paint is learning how to see one's subject and how to respond to the qualities of the medium one is using — pencil or paint, or anything else. I think it regrettable that students are no longer taught to draw in art schools, but I do not mourn the passing of copying.

So you’re saying in art, imitation isn’t a valid way of learning craft because you’re not learning how to see a subject. You’re seeing the subject only through the eyes of someone who has already seen and interpreted it?

That makes sense and would probably different from music in that you can learn to hear by listening to people who have already played. Not markedly different than listening to music that’s being played live, other than the rewind button.

But also it kind of implies that you could teach someone to see at all, or to create something new at all. Is theory any better at that? Or maybe — Is there a way in art to imitate a master with appreciation for what they’re seeing or saw on the other side? Because that’s an important part of the imitation we’re talking about with music. Not just playing it, but trying to understand it.

[Litterick]

So you’re saying in art, imitation isn’t a valid way of learning craft because you’re not learning how to see a subject. You’re seeing the subject only through the eyes of someone who has already seen and interpreted it?

That makes sense and would probably different from music in that you can learn to hear by listening to people who have already played. Not markedly different than listening to music that’s being played live, other than the rewind button.

But also it kind of implies that you could teach someone to see at all, or to create something new at all. Is theory any better at that? Or maybe — Is there a way in art to imitate a master with appreciation for what they’re seeing or saw on the other side? Because that’s an important part of the imitation we’re talking about with music. Not just playing it, but trying to understand it.

It was a valid way of learning craft, the principal way in art schools, until as late as the 1960s. And it was taught with the purpose of creating understanding, as you say is the case with music. But seeing through the masters was replaced by seeing through theory. I do not think theory is better: it is a barrier between the student and experience. Besides, art students are not readers or writers: they experience the world through sensation, not through literature.

I have doubts about jazz theory, for similar reasons.

[mr. beaumont]

Imitation taught paint application, optical mixing, the concept of underpinning, creating darks without black, etc.

You can't be original if you can't paint.

[pamosmusic]

It was a valid way of learning craft, the principal way in art schools, until as late as the 1960s. And it was taught with the purpose of creating understanding, as you say is the case with music. But seeing through the masters was replaced by seeing through theory. I do not think theory is better: it is a barrier between the student and experience. Besides, art students are not readers or writers: they experience the world through sensation, not through literature.

I have doubts about jazz theory, for similar reasons.

Music theory is a different animal because we don’t have a language for what sounds are happening at a given time. When you see a thing you sort of know what it is. Your mind kind of fills in gaps based on past experience and that kind of thing, so you might be mistaken, but you have a concept of what it is you’re actually seeing.

We have naturally excellent ears for things like dynamic and timbre and contour and things like that. We’ve been perceiving them for as long as we’ve been listening to speech, so once people have some rudimentary facility with an instrument, they’re very good at imitating those things. But distinguishing precise pitches is a whole other thing. So theory in music is (or should be) about assisting your ear; categorizing sounds so you can recognize them again later or produce them again in another context.

We’ve been perceiving light and color and whatnot for as long as we’ve been alive, so the same barriers don’t exist. We’ve got this enormous body of experience that tells us that that weird thing on the ground is a shadow and not a ghost. Trying to determine what’s going on in a jazz solo would be like trying to paint a landscape without ever having been outside. You can still see the stuff, but you have no real concept of what it is.

And some people can do this with their ears. Absolutely. But that number of people is very very small. It’s interesting when you talk about perceiving being the skill—it’s something we’re already good at in this sort of utilitarian way (seeing the world around us so we can move and survive in it; hearing sounds so we can understand speech)—but how does an artist work on being able to see better and in more detail and with some fresh perspective?

[pamosmusic]

Imitation taught paint application, optical mixing, the concept of underpinning, creating darks without black, etc.

You can't be original if you can't paint.

True and I’m still kind of skeptical of the idea that imitation doesn’t really teach craft, so I’m interested to hear more about it.

BUT

I would also say that music is a performing art, so originality doesn’t matter as much as how engaging the performance is. Being in the presence of the performance is a value of its own. Though originality can be one of many things that makes a performance more engaging. Maybe visual art — here is this painting on the wall, this installation at the park, this sculpture in the garden — is static in a way that puts a premium on originality. Why look at something that looks like starry night when you could just look at starry night?

[Kirk Garrett]

Imitation taught paint application, optical mixing, the concept of underpinning, creating darks without black, etc.

You can't be original if you can't paint.

If only songwriters like Bob Dylan, and Lennon & McCartney hadn’t spent years aping their predecessors. Then they might have become real originals!

[pamosmusic]

If only songwriters like Bob Dylan, and Lennon & McCartney hadn’t spent years aping their predecessors. Then they might have become real originals!

Bob’s “Love and Theft” might be instructive here.

[ccroft]

...Learning how to draw and paint is learning how to see ...

I'm not adding anything new to the thread, but I'd like to say that 'transcribing' and imitation in music are also about learning how to hear: being able to hear musical ideas is a pre-requisite. We all know the more you do it the better you get. A better ear is good for group improv.

It's not necessary to use the things you've worked on in your music. For me it's an exercise to develop the ear, getting better at finding the notes you're after on the guitar, and possibly opening the mind to some new-to-you ideas and directions. I'm enjoying learning some Martino licks from Mr Zucker, but I'm quite sure I'll never use them verbatim. (I tried learning them by ear 50+ years ago, but I just couldn't hear fast enough to get them off an LP)

Photography is all about seeing. I'm a pretty good technical photog, but my wife blows me out of the water with her phone because she sees opportunities that I don't. She has her way of seeing. Hearing is like that too.

[Litterick]

Imitation taught paint application, optical mixing, the concept of underpinning, creating darks without black, etc.

You can't be original if you can't paint.

But imitation is not the only way to learn to paint.

[pamosmusic]

But imitation is not the only way to learn to paint.

How is it taught otherwise?

Not trying to be obtuse. Really wondering. For what it’s worth I find this stuff super interesting. I’m really big on pulling stuff out of transcriptions and trying to turn it into technical practice and that sort of thing. I think the technical practice is really important but it also helps to see why I’m practicing it. And that’s almost a separate thing from all those unquantifiable things you pick up from imitating a solo by a player you admire.

So I’m curious what the substitute is for imitation in the context of art. And if it’s really a satisfactory substitute to you. Etc etc.

[Kirk Garrett]

How is it taught otherwise?

Not trying to be obtuse. Really wondering. For what it’s worth I find this stuff super interesting. I’m really big on pulling stuff out of transcriptions and trying to turn it into technical practice and that sort of thing. I think the technical practice is really important but it also helps to see why I’m practicing it. And that’s almost a separate thing from all those unquantifiable things you pick up from imitating a solo by a player you admire.

So I’m curious what the substitute is for imitation in the context of art. And if it’s really a satisfactory substitute to you. Etc etc.

Well, there’s “art” and there’s painting. The art world, at least in the west, increasingly wanted novelty and originality. Perhaps above all other qualities. Eventually art largely broke away from painting and sculpture. No, not entirely. But think of Duchamp. Think of Warhol.

Then think of, I don’t know, someone like Laurie Anderson. Original and interesting. Entertaining. Thought provoking, fresh, kinda weird.

Less about a fairly focused set of acquired skills, more about concept and performance. Skills require repetition and yes, imitation. New concepts do not necessarily. And much or most of the art world kept score by originality.

These days I’m not so sure. I think now it’s more about some sort of personal authenticity.

[st.bede]

True and I’m still kind of skeptical of the idea that imitation doesn’t really teach craft, so I’m interested to hear more about it.

BUT

I would also say that music is a performing art, so originality doesn’t matter as much as how engaging the performance is. Being in the presence of the performance is a value of its own. Though originality can be one of many things that makes a performance more engaging. Maybe visual art — here is this painting on the wall, this installation at the park, this sculpture in the garden — is static in a way that puts a premium on originality. Why look at something that looks like starry night when you could just look at starry night?

That is something I have not really thought about. Thank you.

[Litterick]

We’ve been perceiving light and color and whatnot for as long as we’ve been alive, so the same barriers don’t exist. We’ve got this enormous body of experience that tells us that that weird thing on the ground is a shadow and not a ghost. Trying to determine what’s going on in a jazz solo would be like trying to paint a landscape without ever having been outside. You can still see the stuff, but you have no real concept of what it is.

And some people can do this with their ears. Absolutely. But that number of people is very very small. It’s interesting when you talk about perceiving being the skill—it’s something we’re already good at in this sort of utilitarian way (seeing the world around us so we can move and survive in it; hearing sounds so we can understand speech)—but how does an artist work on being able to see better and in more detail and with some fresh perspective?

By looking another way. Our perception is not neutral. We see the shadow and not the ghost because we have been taught to see natural phenomena for what they are. In other cultures, nature is full of meaning, where the shadow could be both natural and supernatural. Learning to draw, or to play music, is not learning objectively. It is learning within a culture and being acculturated. Art schools in other cultures will teach drawing (and seeing) in other ways.

When young men went to academies in the nineteenth century, they were taught to draw and paint in the grand manner, which was said to the the tradition of the old masters. The Impressionists and their contemporaries broke with that tradition, deliberately seeing things differently, learning from other cultures and from each other.

Music schools to me seem more traditional than art schools. A student does not learn music objectively (if such learning were possible) but within a genre. The student joins the classical stream or the jazz programme (but they might turn out playing rock music).