-
How important is to transcribe jazz solos?. Is it really that necessary?. Do you just play them in your instrument or you also write them down on paper?
-
08-20-2023 07:45 PM
-
This is very important. You are developing your hearing and musicality.
Proven method by older musicians.
Writing down on paper-helpful in analyzing and playing solo from memory.
-
Yeah I would say the writing is helpful for some things but not necessary. Learning whole solos not necessary.
But listening and copying is incredibly important, whether it’s short passages never written, or whole solos written note for note.
-
Hey look there is a can… what is in? Worms. Well I could of guessed.
I will make a prediction, you are about to get around three answers.
A. The most important thing that any jazz guitarist can do and, must do is to transcribe solos.
B. Transcribe/shamscribe, no real jazz guitar player does such a silly thing.
C. Yes it is important but so are many other things.
I can not answer such a profound question. I do believe that if a person wants to play jazz, they will have to spend some dedicated and focused time listening to jazz. I also suggest listening to non guitar jazz. I believe that was one of my best decisions in life. I am currently re-living a whole Joe Henderson phase. Very fun, very rich.
-
Most people value copying solos to train your ear and build vocabulary, among other things.
I have met great players who claim to have done very little of it.
But, most great players have done it.
-
It's essential to do at least some. What the others said. Not necessary to write out entire solos but you can if you're up to it. At least pick up a few riffs and lines here and there. It gets you closer to the music and builds your intuitive grasp. As well as improves your vocab and musicality.
-
What would Wes write?
-
If we're talking about "beginers' jazz musicians, transcribing is essential.
I have over 100 different jazz metodic books - everywhere it says do it.
I'm talking about learning jazz.
-
I've heard quite many good improvisers claim that they only transcribe nice phrases from solos and not entire solos, but if asked further they'll often admit to having transcribed whole solos during some phase in their development.
(I'm sure there do exist player that have never in their life learnt an entire solo from their idols, I think I remember John Scofield making such a claim (or implication?) in an interview with Cory Wong somewhat recently)
If you're at a some hypothetical level 3 and ask a level 10 player how they practise. It might be more useful to know how they practised to get from level 3 to 4, instead of trying to imitate how they currently practise at level 10.
There are countless of examples of great players learning recorded solos from their idols. Wes learnt Charlie Christian solos, Coltrane learnt Parker solos etc.
Should you write them down?
I see three advantages:
1. If you're a sheet music person (perhaps more common with horn players), and sheet music is akin to your native language, writing down the music in this familiar script can help you to understand and visualize the musical material better.
2. If you're less of a sheet music person, and sheet music is more like a foreign language, writing down the music will give you more experience in working with sheet music and sheet music in general will gradually become more familiar.
3. If you use a computer programme that can play back what you write, you might find errors by listening to the playback from the programme. You could also slow it down to practise playing along. (but you can also slow down the recording in modern playback software).
Blind players rarely read or write down music, but they can become very competent improvisers, which can make it hard to argue that it is essential to write down the solos you learn.
Lennie Tristano (blind pianist), had his students learn solos from recordings, and sing the entire solo before they were allowed to attempt playing it on their instrument.
I'd say try to transcribe at least one solo and write it down, and then another solo without writing it down (in whichever order). Then make your own evaluation of whether you found it helpful, instructive or advantageous in some other way. If you hate writing it down, by all means skip it.
I also like the singing first approach.
-
I'm just a (perpetual) beginner at jazz guitar but enjoy transcribing solos - sometimes I write them down, sometimes not. The biggest benefit I've found is that lines I've worked out for myself (as opposed to taking them from a book / YT video / course / teacher etc) tend to stick much more easily and actually come out in my playing. Lines I get "given" rarely do.
I'd love to be able to sing a solo before transcribing it but this would require someone with a much better voice, range, and memory than I've got. It's a shame as I've heard this advice a lot, too.
Derek
-
You usually start with something simple and melodic. Louis Armstrong, Lester Young or Chet Baker for instance. Vocal range can be a challenge, you can jump octaves or simply skip notes you can't reach. You can transpose or change speed in software.
Originally Posted by digger
You also break it down into phrases or even shorter segments that suits your memory, and then combine all the phrases (that's also how I would transcribe with instrument).
I've also seen players transcribe with instrument but still often sing each phrase first. In that way you can sing the more singable phrases and skip singing the harder to sing phrases.
-
Take, for example, the phrases over 2 5 1 progression.
Transcribing and analyzing notes is definitely something positive.
In this case, it's not all solo.
-
It all depends. Can you play the major scale in 5 positions across the neck, effortlessly through all 12 keys, can you do it in thirds and triads too? Can you learn a head by ear?
Once you can do these fundamentals, pulling licks from a jazz solo you like is no problem.
Trying to transcribe jazz solos before you have a grasp of the instrument is unnecessary torture.
-
Some learn that way. Others do not. It is a preference, not a requirement.
-
ugh, how to sum up Originally Posted by lukatherknopfler
It’s important to get used to learning music by ear. Imo being able to play melodies and so on by ear is a fundamental prerequisite of being a musician. Learning music this way is the best ear training there is
- learning to sing it (however badly) teaches you to be a musician
- playing it teaches you to play your instrument
- Writing it teaches you to write (and write) music
all good stuff, all slightly seperate
the necessity of doing solos in particular depends on who you ask. Some greats haven’t!
Otoh If you have trouble transcribing straightforward solos (so not Trane etc lol), it probably means your ears could use some work.
I tend to emphasise the importance of learning repetoire by ear such as bop heads and so on. I think it’s an efficient use of your time. Make use of what you learn; take ideas and so on.
FWIW I’ve done solos. It’s fun.
-
Don't worry about your voice, nobody will listen anyway. Even if you only get the rhythm right, singing will help you tremendously. Start with short phrases that you can memorise. It's learnable, like any other skill. Originally Posted by digger
-
i would probably agree with this. Originally Posted by AllanAllen
-
Transcription is one of those things that may change as you get better at it.
From early to late stages, it might develop / progress something like below:
Hear Recording -> Write (Schema/Score) -> Verify -> Practice -> Memorize
Hear Recording -> Capture (Score) -> Analyse -> Practice -> Internalize
Hear Recording -> Capture (Mental) -> Analyse -> Practice -> Internalize
Hear Idea (Mental) -> "Transcribe Yourself" (Mental) -> Internalize -> Practice
Hear Idea (Mental) -> "Transcribe Yourself" in real time -> Performance
I see the input starting with outside sound, later becoming the inside sound of musical ideas, the writing for verification / analysis changing to mental and internal, and the output moving from memorization to internalization, to immediate availability for practice , ultimately to real time performance.
I think some jazz guitarists may enter the flow at the third line in the middle, either from musical experience or an intuition that the eventual target is largely a mental process during performance of transcribing one's own flow of musical ideas through the instrument.
-
no idea what you mean by this, but I have heard Wes started his jazz playing playing Charlie Christian stuff note for note.
Originally Posted by Litterick
-
Yeah getting the articulation and time is waaaaayyy more important than getting the pitches right when you’re singing anyway. Originally Posted by docsteve
-
Hmm. Not sure I agree with this. It’s important to get all that stuff, but also to be making music with it as soon as possible and it’s hard to know what music sounds like unless you’re pretty deliberately listening and copying the music you want to play. Originally Posted by AllanAllen
The most important stuff to get out of a transcription is all that extra stuff—articulation, time feel, rhythmic placement. And all that stuff is just as available in Chet Bakers statement of a melody as it is in Chet Bakers solo. So transcribing or copying really really simple stuff is important and also probably doesn’t need to wait until all the other stuff is together. You can start small and then let it grow as the chops grows. Also learning short passages can give you something to achieve technically as you’re learning all those other positions (i.e. can you play that melody or line in a new position.)
-
While I wouldn't call it unnecessary torture it isn't the best use of one's time for a beginner. Originally Posted by AllanAllen
-
It's all very well to say 'transcribe jazz solos'. You'd have to know where the notes were on the guitar and be able to write accurate notation. Can you do all that? Originally Posted by lukatherknopfler
-
Transcribe is a loose term in jazz. What it boils down to is -- WORK that ear and learn as MUCH by ear as you can.
-
Well, that's what we're learning. Originally Posted by ragman1
Reply With Quote
dearmond 1100 reissue vs original which one is...
Today, 03:30 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos