How important is to transcribe jazz solos?

[ragman1]

Quotes by Breckerfan.

While transcription in a literal way implies writing, that's not how it's used

By whom exactly?

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

So he writes them down.

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.

Well, he's asserting that's the context. He's acting as an authority of the meaning. Except that no one here is a supreme authority as far as I know.

I think in common usage in a jazz context, the key element is learning by ear. If someone says they transcribed a solo, in a jazz context, I would take that element as certain (which is of course funny because that is not etymologically what the word means, but that's how it's used).

Says who? 'Transcribe by ear' is nonsense. Work out by ear, certainly. But, sorry, transcribe means to set it down in a format other than merely hearing it.

[ragman1]

Don't confuse me with Michael Brecker. It's not even remotely fair to him haha

As you say, Professor :-)

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.

You wouldn't even say 'going for a pilot'. That would be confusing the noun with the verb. To be exact.

[Christian Miller]

This is maybe a function of the jazz world being broader than just the more intense, more exclusive circles.

I would describe it as what happens when that world hits the institutional world of education

As I say I’m not 100% that transcription is a post-Berklee music school term, but I don’t think Barry or the Tristano school used it. Happy and interested to corrected though.

Jazz musicians have always ‘transcribed’ but haven’t alway as used that term to describe what they are doing. It seems likely someone was looking for a fancy Big Education word to represent the process and they chose that one.

When I talk to my hardcore jazz nerd friends, I know how they’re using the word. They mean learning a solo or large part of a solo or group of lines or whatever. It’s serious aural study of a musician or piece of music, rendered on the instrument. I don’t ask if they’re writing it down or not because it’s neither here nor there.

But if you’re interacting with folks who didn’t study super formally or move through one of those bigger jazz markets, then it’s easy to see how the term could be confusing. And it certainly is sometimes.

So you are saying that you and your hardcore jazz crowd don’t use the CORRECT definition according to the pedants of JGO haha ;-)

I’ve not noticed any particular consistency in the term’s use among high level musicians. I would also be unsurprised if it didn’t also differ from scene to scene and college to college. I’ve also noticed that some pros appear to use it in the ‘writing down sense.’

When a high level player says they haven’t transcribed much or at all (which they sometimes do*), I find it hard to accept that means they don’t or haven’t learn any music by ear. I don’t see how that’s possible for a top level player.

I think Ethan Iverson quoted Charles McPherson saying he never heard Barry Harris discuss transcription - just learning heads by ear. Which to other people might be included in ‘transcription.’

Also cultures vary - IIRC Berklee students seem to have drilled into them the habit of regularly making regular written transcriptions, for example.

*I want to say Jesse Van Ruller said something like this but I don’t have the exact wording - it came up on another thread

[ragman1]

Well, we're getting there...

If they don't actually write it out why not just say 'I learnt it'?

[pamosmusic]

So you are saying that you and your hardcore jazz crowd don’t use the CORRECT definition according to the pedants of JGO haha ;-)

Ive not noticed any particular consistency in the term’s use among high level musicians. I would also be unsurprised if it didn’t also differ from scene to scene and college to college. I’ve also noticed that some pros appear to use it in the ‘writing down sense.’.

Yes. As you know, New York is the world and the world is New York.

[sticks nose into air; struts away]

[pamosmusic]

You wouldn't even say 'going for a pilot'. That would be confusing the noun with the verb. To be exact.

Um … as would “going for a drive.”

[BreckerFan]

Says who? 'Transcribe by ear' is nonsense. Work out by ear, certainly. But, sorry, transcribe means to set it down in a format other than merely hearing it.

This sounds like the type of authoritative definition you're accusing me of making, so I'll ask you, says who?

I'll cite three pieces of evidence for the usage I described is the common one.

1. The large number of YouTube and Instagram videos posted, with transcription in the title, that make no reference to any notation.
2. Christian's anecdote about his student who learn WM by ear but didn't write it down, and still called that transcribing
3. Peter Martin and Adam Maness from Open Studio. They'll qualify the terminology if they get into the weeds, but they often in passing advocate for jazz students to transcribe, and they explicitly do not include writing it down as an essential component.

[BreckerFan]

You wouldn't even say 'going for a pilot'. That would be confusing the noun with the verb. To be exact.

Missing the forest for the trees

[Christian Miller]

Yes. As you know, New York is the world and the world is New York.

[sticks nose into air; struts away]

I’m not 100% it’s constant even to New York! I remember someone asked Peter about transcription and he said he’d only done the one for school, but went on to talk about copping licks by ear and adapting them.

Whatever words he used, I remember Peter was very clear about what he was talking about though.

[Christian Miller]

Well, we're getting there...

If they don't actually write it out why not just say 'I learnt it'?

Why not indeed?

the answer my dear boy, Americans. For as much as they stereotype us as overly verbose, Americans love an impressive sounding Latin rooted bit of terminology.

To be honest it’s a miracle no one says they ‘transcriberized’ a solo. ;-)

[Christian Miller]

Listen. I learned the bloody solo by ear and that’s all there is to it, m8. Now naff off. YOU’RE OUT OF ORDER!!!

(no one in London actually talks like but I was to, ahem … transcribe …. actual London vernacular on all its scatological glory I’d probably be chucked off the forum.)

[ragman1]

Um … as would “going for a drive.”

That might be Brit-speak. We say going for a drive, like going for a walk. Or taking a bath. Not somewhere

[pamosmusic]

I’m not 100% it’s constant even to New York! I remember someone asked Peter about transcription and he said he’d only done the one for school, but went on to talk about copping licks by ear and adapting them.

Whatever words he used, I remember Peter was very clear about what he was talking about though.

Peter who??

Peter where??

But on the real … yeah that doesn’t surprise me. Of course there are exceptions, and Pete is pretty old school in general so it doesn’t surprise me that he’d be one. But it’s pretty consistent. Probably the high percentage of university grads hopping off the Berklee-New School to North Brooklyn pipeline every fall.

[rpjazzguitar]

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.

Well, that's a good point. I probably neglected it because I'm usually reading a guitar chart which is filled with slash marks. Once, when I asked an arranger what the slash marks meant to him, he said, "comp appropriately".

Even when the guitar is playing single note lines, articulation marks are either not there, or I've been ignoring them. After all, it's hard enough just to play the notes!

[James W]

an impressive sounding Latin rooted bit of terminology.

You keep making this point. But not all Latin rooted words are uncommon or impressive, including 'transcribe' which is more elegant and concise than the alternatives, for the reasons I point out in my previous post in this thread.

[Christian Miller]

Peter who??

Peter where??

But on the real … yeah that doesn’t surprise me. Of course there are exceptions, and Pete is pretty old school in general so it doesn’t surprise me that he’d be one. But it’s pretty consistent. Probably the high percentage of university grads hopping off the Berklee-New School to North Brooklyn pipeline every fall.

oh don’t… I bet they talk about utilizing sick concepts as well.*

It doesn’t make it right Pamo. It doesn’t make it right!

I played with some young’uns the other day. They were very good at jazz, and terribly nice and serious and desperate to appear like well adjusted human beings even though they manifestly spend eight hours a day locked in a basement. I’m not fooled guys. Just be freaks. It’s ok.

OTOH there’s the other ones ‘oh yeah did you have a good time in the states, how was Christian? Oh he was cool but we couldn’t hang out for long cos he had to run Newport’

Good god, give me people with a few miles on the clock. Sorry young’uns. You’re all very talented and motivated. Everyone’s very impressed. But I need people who can discuss the finer points of Costco. I’m an exceptionally boring man.

* which I think means ‘using a useful idea that sounds really good?’ Is that about right?

[ragman1]

This sounds like the type of authoritative definition you're accusing me of making, so I'll ask you, says who?

I'm not making any authoritative statement of my own, I'm saying what's wrong with the ones given. Not the same thing.

I'll cite three pieces of evidence for the usage I described is the common one.


1. The large number of YouTube and Instagram videos posted, with transcription in the title, that make no reference to any notation.

Professors all, I expect.

2. Christian's anecdote about his student

Oh, well, that decides it then!

3. Peter Martin and Adam Maness from Open Studio.

I'm not going to wade through all their videos. Show me which one/s you mean.

[Christian Miller]

I bet I could have a good chat with Bernstein about Costco

[ragman1]

This could go on all day. I'll just take it by context. Easier.

[Christian Miller]

You keep making this point. But not all Latin rooted words are uncommon or impressive, including 'transcribe' which is more elegant and concise than the alternatives, for the reasons I point out in my previous post in this thread.

well it might be if I knew with any consistency what people meant by it.

the point is not - ooh latin words bad - I’m not exactly Hemingway myself - but that its meaning is not in fact clear.

The Latin aspect of it comes up in that people use it I think because it sounds more terminological. Obviously it’s built into the structure of modern language that Latin words are more official or authoritative than Anglo Saxon ones. But in this case the use is not actually terminological- in fact it seems like a terminological sounding word used conversationally. However unlike many conversational words it doesn’t even seem have a normative use that I can discern.

the answer to this issue is not a definition. I don’t actually care what your or my definition of the term is if it’s not the one understood by the person I’m trying to understand. Such as the OP.

So, I prefer not to use it which is something under my power. People are obviously going to use it and I will continue to not know exactly what they mean by it without further context. It’s cool. But it makes threads like this a bit messed up from the start.

Anyway I thought my original reply was good. And my motion stands. It’s a stupid term, but one we are stuck with … for some reason. See also the names of the melodic minor modes. Also dumb, and improvable. But at least it’s clear what people mean by ‘lydian dominant’

surely the aim is to be clear in communicating rather than being elegant writers of prose?

[pamosmusic]

I bet I could have a good chat with Bernstein about Costco

Im an Aldi man myself.

[rpjazzguitar]

Long threads are often those where the meaning of a term with no official definition is discussed.

In common musician usage, "transcribe" means the player did something involving figuring out something on a record.

The full bore activity would be figuring out the notes with all the nuances, writing it all down, and learning to play it exactly like the recording.

Or it might be as little as writing down a few notes, or learning to play a few notes but not exactly like the recording.

Sure, in some of those cases, the "scribe" part is misleading.

That said, I want to turn to another aspect of it.

My impression is that transcription (broadly defined) does not come equally easily to different players. I never found it easy and rarely found it to be fun. So, I didn't do it very much (usually just to figure out a short passage with a sound that caught my ear, and then, almost never writing it out).

I'm not recommending this approach. I wish that I had enjoyed it more -- I might have a bigger jazz vocabulary than the two licks I know and use (both of which, btw, I learned from being in the room with a teacher who played them, not from a recording).

In reading interviews, the player will often describe transcribing (broad def) from the very beginning. But, not everybody has done that.

So, what do you say to the aspiring player who doesn't take to transcription like a duck to water?

A teacher once told me "transcribe for 5 minutes a day". That might be pretty good advice. Even a little bit is probably helpful. But no, I didn't follow the advice. I wish I had because there are a lot of jazzy things I like that I don't have in my playing.

There is an argument that the "I hate to transcribe" cloud has a silver lining. Maybe it would permit you to develop a more individual style. Straw man? Of course, the conventional wisdom, with which I agree, is that transcription (broad def) is the better avenue to an individual style. I think that's true because it trains the ear -- and, I think, one of the few things all great jazz musicians have in common is great ears. Another is great time feel, which transcription helps too.

So, if your goal is to be considered a well rounded, in demand, jazz player in NYC, you probably should transcribe (broad def).

[Christian Miller]

Im an Aldi man myself.

Aldi is good. I can respect.

[Christian Miller]

Long threads are often those where the meaning of a term with no official definition is discussed.

In common musician usage, "transcribe" means the player did something involving figuring out something on a record.

The full bore activity would be figuring out the notes with all the nuances, writing it all down, and learning to play it exactly like the recording.

Or it might be as little as writing down a few notes, or learning to play a few notes but not exactly like the recording.

Sure, in some of those cases, the "scribe" part is misleading.

That said, I want to turn to another aspect of it.

My impression is that transcription (broadly defined) does not come equally easily to different players. I never found it easy and rarely found it to be fun. So, I didn't do it very much (usually just to figure out a short passage with a sound that caught my ear, and then, almost never writing it out).

I'm not recommending this approach. I wish that I had enjoyed it more -- I might have a bigger jazz vocabulary than the two licks I know and use (both of which, btw, I learned from being in the room with a teacher who played them, not from a recording).

In reading interviews, the player will often describe transcribing (broad def) from the very beginning. But, not everybody has done that.

So, what do you say to the aspiring player who doesn't take to transcription like a duck to water?

A teacher once told me "transcribe for 5 minutes a day". That might be pretty good advice. Even a little bit is probably helpful. But no, I didn't follow the advice. I wish I had because there are a lot of jazzy things I like that I don't have in my playing.

There is an argument that the "I hate to transcribe" cloud has a silver lining. Maybe it would permit you to develop a more individual style. Straw man? Of course, the conventional wisdom, with which I agree, is that transcription (broad def) is the better avenue to an individual style. I think that's true because it trains the ear -- and, I think, one of the few things all great jazz musicians have in common is great ears. Another is great time feel, which transcription helps too.

So, if your goal is to be considered a well rounded, desireable, jazz player in NYC, you probably should transcribe (broad def).

We can say “it’s very important for an aspiring jazz musician to get comfortable learning music by ear from recordings. This might initially mean the melodies of songs, and later chord progressions and probably solos as they get more experienced.”

simple, clear and true.

[pamosmusic]

oh don’t… I bet they talk about utilizing sick concepts as well.*

Back in my day, everything was “hip” and “killin” but I’m old now.

Before the forum jumps down my throat, “killin” is a figure of speech and no one has ever been actually harmed by listening to a particularly smokin jazz lick—at least, not to my knowledge.