How important is to transcribe jazz solos?

[Christian Miller]

Transcribe is a stupid name for it

[starjasmine]

Oxford dictionary defines "transcribe" as "put (thoughts, speech, or data) into written or printed form."

In the university music program where I studied , the term universally meant to create a written representation in standard notation. Doing that correctly required understanding of theoretical constructs and notational conventions. In fact, transcribing solos in standard notation was assigned work in one of the arranging classes I took.

Tanscribing any solo - whether for your own instrument or some other one - will help you to learn authentic jazz vocabulary, style and phrasing.

To answer the OP, if you want to improve your skill level at all of the above, transcription is hard to beat.

Unfortunately, the youtube-ization of the term seems now to mean "parakeet someone's playing." You can still get something out of copying a solo without writing it down. But you won't get all of the above, and it's not transcription.

[pamosmusic]

Oxford dictionary defines "transcribe" as "put (thoughts, speech, or data) into written or printed form."

In the university music program where I studied , the term universally meant to create a written representation in standard notation. Doing that correctly required understanding of theoretical constructs and notational conventions. In fact, transcribing solos in standard notation was assigned work in one of the arranging classes I took.

Tanscribing any solo - whether for your own instrument or some other one - will help you to learn authentic jazz vocabulary, style and phrasing.

To answer the OP, if you want to improve your skill level at all of the above, transcription is hard to beat.

Unfortunately, the youtube-ization of the term seems now to mean "parakeet someone's playing." You can still get something out of copying a solo without writing it down. But you won't get all of the above, and it's not transcription.

I think you’ll find that most people disagree with the order you imply here. The listening and copying is much much older than the literal transcribing into notation. The transcription of an entire solo or chorus into notation is kind of an invention of the academy.

I’m not in the camp of folks here who think academic stuff is superfluous nonsense. Transcribing in that literal sense is super useful and seeing ideas written down is beneficial and interesting, but it came about in university as a means of assessing and collecting a process that was going on in essence for a very very long time before.

When you say that the purpose of transcription is to develop authentic jazz phrasing, I’d ask you which aspects of that phrasing are generally written down? Many couldn’t be written down even if someone tried. How would a person, for example, write down Dexter Gordon’s swing feel?

I’m not disagreeing with you about the benefits of writing the thing down, but you’ve got the history backwards on this one.

EDIT: Transcription as a learning tool in general isn’t an invention of the academy, obviously. Particular with composers. But in the context we’re talking about, it’s pretty close.

[BreckerFan]

It's hard to think of a method of learning jazz that covers as many bases as transcription.

Ear training to start as you figure out what they're playing.

Practicing notation and analysis if you write it down. While transcription in a literal way implies writing, that's not how it's used, which is much more determinative of what it means in this context than a dictionary. But of course you can get a lot out of notating. Making decisions on how to write things to best convey what's happening in the music has been really helpful for me. Even thinking about trying to notate what the musician is thinking rather than precisely what they're playing can be an interesting exercise.

Practice fretboard knowledge as you learn to play it. Especially since guitar has so many potential fingerings, this can be a good exercise. Transcribing non-guitarists can help you break out of boxes.

Practice technique as you learn to play it, connected with the last point. Learning piano and saxophone solos has really stretched my technique, especially piano. Their use of large interval jumps can be tricky.

Practice rhythm, time feel, dynamics, articulation, etc as you play along with a recording. This is all the stuff that you can't necessarily notate (which is part of why notation is not essential), but is really essential to playing jazz. You can kind of pick it up through osmosis.

And of course the end result is hopefully some new vocabulary. Whether in the form of defined licks or concepts or even in more subliminal ways like training your ears to place strong and weak notes on certain beats or otherwise phrase in certain ways.

Probably many more I'm not thinking of.

[rpjazzguitar]

Transcription to make what amounts to a lead sheet of a solo gives you the notes and their rough timing. It also gives the harmony.

It doesn't give nuance, unless you add it in, say, the way guitar magazines try to present the way the notes are played (slides, bends, prebends, shakes and so on). And, that will be a challenge.

It doesn't give feel.

A quick story comes to mind. I took a group lesson with a well known Brazilian drummer. We had an egg shaker in the room and somebody decided to play it. This is constant 16th notes in 2/4, accented appropriately. Next, the Brazilian drummer played it, whereupon the light in the room changed. Suddenly, we could feel Brazil. If you transcribed them, the charts would be the the same, except when you heard them, it wasn't.

[starjasmine]

The listening and copying is much much older than the literal transcribing into notation.

Listening and copying is "memorization." Transcribing involves creating a record. Historically, that record has been a written record (the "scribe" part of the word), since recording technology only began in 1877. And nobody would call making a tape-recorded copy of a performance a "transcription," would they? So I don't understand why people call their youtube cover videos "transcriptions."

If you want to call parakeeting a solo "transcription," how is that different from a "cover" of the solo? When I google for a Martino "transcription" what good does it do me to see somebody playing his solo on youtube when I can see PM himself play it? A written record, a "lead sheet of the solo" to paraphrase Rick, is a distinct work product that adds value not present in the original performance. I can learn and remember faster with that memory aid. A video of someone else playing the same thing doesn't do any of that. Now, if I couldn't read or didn't know the fretboard, maybe that video would be more useful than the written transcription. Again, if I can watch the original performance, and the quality of that recording is good, the video "transcription" is not a distinct product that adds value.

The transcription of an entire solo or chorus into notation is kind of an invention of the academy.

Players studied other players and composers before it became a standard practice in music courses that taught improvisation. Isn't the first Real Book largely a collection of Gary Burton's lead sheets? i.e. Berklee adopted the practice from him, not the other way around.

When you say that the purpose of transcription is to develop authentic jazz phrasing, I’d ask you which aspects of that phrasing are generally written down? Many couldn’t be written down even if someone tried. How would a person, for example, write down Dexter Gordon’s swing feel?

While there's a "certain something" that can't be captured on paper, the horn charts for a big band arrangement are proof that a LOT of phrasing and articulation can be notated, down to when to take a breath... I'm sort of surprised that @rp didn't push back on that, given all of his big-band experience.

PS - apologies to the OP; I don't mean to hijack the thread.

[pamosmusic]

I'm positing that transcribing involves creating a written record; I'm not talking not about whether one learning style came before another.

I understand, but when most jazz musicians use the term in most settings, they’re using it very loosely, to include learning music by ear—written down or not. I understand the dictionary definition, but that’s not really the same thing as what people mean when they use the word in this specific context.

And maybe I misunderstood your part about how writing out solos has descended into parakeeting licks on YouTube. I thought it pertinent to point out that jazz musicians tended to learn lines and passages by ear without writing them down before the practice of written transcription became common practice in jazz education.

If you want to call parakeeting a solo "transcription" how is that different from a "cover" of the solo? When I google for a Martino "transcription" what good does it do me to see somebody playing his solo on youtube when I can see PM himself play it? A written record, a "lead sheet of the solo" to paraphrase Rick, is actually useful to me. I can learn and remember faster with that memory aid. A video of someone else playing the same thing doesn't do any of that. But... that's me. If I couldn't read or didn't know the fretboard, maybe that video would be more useful than the written transcription. Again, if I can watch the original performance, and the quality of that recording is good, the video "transcription" adds no value.

I’m not sure what we’re talking about here.

Players studied other players and composers before it became a standard practice in music courses that taught improvisation.

This is absolutely true, but until university jazz ed came around, that study tended not to be written down. Point taken on the Real Book, but jazz dudes tend also to have strong opinions about lead sheets. [See: Yotam Silberstein’s Instagram post featuring himself, a Real Book, and a lighter.]

While there's a "certain something" that can't be captured on paper, the horn charts for a big band arrangement are proof that a LOT of phrasing and articulation can be notated, down to when to take a breath... I'm sort of surprised that @rp didn't push back on that, given all of his big-band experience.

That certain something is the time feel and articulation that make the music different than other kinds of music. A jazz accent is not the same as a classical accent. A jazz eighth note is not the same as a salsa eighth note. A bebop swing is not the same as a hard bop swing. So it’s a very important something too.

I’m not saying that writing the stuff down is useless. It’s insanely useful. I write down lots of my big transcriptions, if only so that I can go back to them later. But others do it differently and have been doing it differently a very long time. I also do it differently fairly often. It depends on what I want to do.

[BreckerFan]

If you want to call parakeeting a solo "transcription," how is that different from a "cover" of the solo? When I google for a Martino "transcription" what good does it do me to see somebody playing his solo on youtube when I can see PM himself play it? A written record, a "lead sheet of the solo" to paraphrase Rick, is a distinct work product that adds value not present in the original performance. I can learn and remember faster with that memory aid. A video of someone else playing the same thing doesn't do any of that. Now, if I couldn't read or didn't know the fretboard, maybe that video would be more useful than the written transcription. Again, if I can watch the original performance, and the quality of that recording is good, the video "transcription" is not a distinct product that adds value.

I don't think the point of transcribing is to create a "product" to "add value". It's music, not a "work product".

I post transcriptions because 1. Most people who watch do enjoy them, but really 2. As a record for myself to look back on

[kris]

Transcribe is a stupid name for it

What's easier to transcribe for guitarist?
A single line solo recorded by a guitarist or a solo recorded by a saxophonist?
Is guitar knowledge helpful in this?
Using the right fingers on the guitar's neck is probably the basis.

[pamosmusic]

I don't think the point of transcribing is to create a "product" to "add value". It's music, not a "work product".

I post transcriptions because 1. Most people who watch do enjoy them, but really 2. As a record for myself to look back on

Man I wish people did this when I was in college. I’ve been going over some of my old transcriptions and they are … let’s say inconsistent.

[Bop Head]

"Transcription" without the "scribe" aspect according to the Tristano school:

[Christian Miller]

So if you accept transcribe with the ‘scribe’ aspect I think the main value of that is get good at writing things down (eps rhythms I’ve found), and also when I want to play something with other musicians. As Peter says it can also be useful to remove yourself from the music and see it as an ‘object’ (I also like playing things at the piano for that.)

Writing things down is helpful for music schools, but it generates a body of written work, and I expect this is important for academic accreditation, and I don’t get the impression that specifically writing down solos was that common before the magic date of 1970 although I could be totally wrong (It’s worth bearing in mind that the needs of music schools and the needs of jazz students do not always perfectly overlap.)

Writing things down may also encourage analysis, and I think that it’s worth pointing out that analysis is not as important a part of this as internalisation if the aim is to actually be able to play stuff. Someone can transcribe and analyse a solo without really being able to play it…. I’ve done it.

It may be mostly important at first to just know the application of a ‘lifted’ line - eg ‘this is a ii V I lick’ and be able to hear and play it in all keys and on tunes - rather then get into the woods about what its constituent bits are and how they work.

If using this ‘stealing lines and applying them’ approach not everyone works on complete solos, but may instead ‘lift’ lines here and there. (As for historical examples of this learning process, solos were also much shorter when Bird and Wes were getting it together due to the limitations of the ‘78 format. A lot of the Tristano stuff was based on these ‘78 format recordings - Louis, Prez Charlie, Bird - which might make the idea of singing the whole thing through seem less daunting)

Important to going beyond mere imitation is the principle of variation, not just copping licks from your favourite musicians, but developing and personalising them. Theory can help with this, but I think the main thing is a curious and experimental attitude, changing and adding notes, altering rhythms, playing in different harmonic situations, and so on. I think variation might be the single most undervalued aspect of developing improvisation. It’s far more important imo than analysis.

I think what muddies the waters is that sometimes people use ‘transcribe’ to mean ear-learning. I’d rather use the latter term for activities that don’t involve writing out the music, because it is clear what is meant.

Peter Bernstein said he only did one complete transcription iirc - a Charlie Christian solo for college. But has he learned a ton of lines and tunes by ear? You bet! (He was also the guy who turned me onto this variation idea.)

OTOH Richie Hart has done hundreds of Wes alone.

[Christian Miller]

I would say jazz is primarily an aural tradition, and imo should be learned that way.

otoh learning to read and write music fluently is very helpful and writing stuff down helps with that.

My policy with transcription/ear learning (whatever you call it) is that there are many ways to do it, and if you are used to doing it one set way, a different approach may teach you something.

[orri]

The "true" meaning of transcribe is definitely to write down what you hear. However, among jazz musicians it the term is also commonly used for learning music from ear, regardless of whether it is written down or not.
It can easily be argued that it's incorrect to use the word when there is no writing, but the word will probably continue to be used in that way.

I had a Greek college who was constantly pointing out how English words of greek and latin origin are used "incorrectly" by all English speakers. He would sometimes try to set a good example by using the terms "correctly" but he was unfortunately often misunderstood or made no sense to other English speakers.

[kris]

Hearing and musical memory are essential.
Creativity is something more.
Do they all have it in the same percentage?
Transcripting solos is only an element that helps in the development at the beginning level.

[James W]

Transcribe is a stupid name for it

What's a better alternative?

I don't like the connotations of 'dictate'.

[pamosmusic]

As Peter says it can also be useful to remove yourself from the music and see it as an ‘object’ (I also like playing things at the piano for that.)

The name’s Pamo.

(Also, as for the variation thing, a plug here for Jeff’s thread: Modular lick compendium)

[ragman1]

Well, that's what we're learning.

Maybe, but that question was specifically for the OP... who appears to be absent :-)

[ragman1]

Transcribe is a stupid name for it

No, it's not. It means precisely what it says, to take a heard sound and recreate it in a different format, i.e. notation.

'transcribe (v.)1550s, from Latin transcribere "to copy, write again in another place, write over, transfer," from trans "across, beyond; over" (see trans-) + scribere "to write" (from PIE root *skribh- "to cut")'

transcribe | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

Computer is a stupid name. It doesn't compute anything, it's just a lot of electrical impulses that obey commands given to it.

[mr. beaumont]

I feel like every 6 months or so we get a thread where folks get bunched about the term "transcription."

[ragman1]

Don't know why :-)

[pamosmusic]

Yeah, can’t possibly imagine.

[Christian Miller]

No, it's not. It means precisely what it says, to take a heard sound and recreate it in a different format, i.e. notation.

'transcribe (v.)1550s, from Latin transcribere "to copy, write again in another place, write over, transfer," from trans "across, beyond; over" (see trans-) + scribere "to write" (from PIE root *skribh- "to cut")'

transcribe | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

Computer is a stupid name. It doesn't compute anything, it's just a lot of electrical impulses that obey commands given to it.

Thanks for proving my point concisely. So it had a definition which has nothing to do with how it is generally used by jazz musicians and makes no reference to hearing anything at all, only writing, which as discussed above is not always a feature of jazz practice.

Otoh you may hear about classical transcriptions which are something else again - pieces for one instrument arranged for another, for instance, ‘Segovia’s transcription of the Bach cello suites for guitar’ (this also fits the definition you cited much more closely)

What's a better alternative?

I don't like the connotations of 'dictate'.

A better name by far is ‘ear learning’ which is clear.

‘Dictation’ is a bit better…. If you want to avoid the Latin (or the connotation? I’m ok with being dictated to by Wes or Bird haha) an arguably better way of putting it still is ‘writing down by ear’ - albeit that’s a little longer. But again, very clear.

If I had to guess, ‘transcription’ probably started being used because some jazz musicians wanted their learning process to sound more academic and official - part of the move into the colleges. We are all familiar with the way language gets used in institutions and how it moves away from everyday use. As we don’t exist in academia I think we can reasonably stick to simple words?

These are the terms I try to use myself to avoid confusion. Others might say transcription, and will continue to do so, but I avoid the term myself and I think describing the activity concisely in plain English is usually possible.

[Christian Miller]

The name’s Pamo.

quite :-)

(Also, as for the variation thing, a plug here for Jeff’s thread: Modular lick compendium)

Yes I saw that - good idea for a thread.

[BreckerFan]

Appealing to a 1550s definition of the original Latin term to prove a point one way or another is irrelevant. Language is not static, it evolves over time, and it's actual use determines it's meaning far more then historical definitions or etymology.

Driving in reference to cars probably originated from literally driving animals to pull a cart, which of course is not how you operate a car. Pilot is probably a more precise word, but if you told a friend you were going for a drive and he corrected you to say you're going for a pilot, you probably wouldn't be friends much longer.

For better or worse, the common usage of transcribe amongst jazz musicians is learning a solo or line by ear, whether writing it down or not. That's what it means in this context.

We would all be better of using our time to do some transcribing (whether you write it down or not) than quibbling over definitions. But I guess what is the Internet for if not quibbling haha.