-
Hello Guys, how are you? I wanted to raise a dichotomy that I've been noticing lately, basically reflected on YouTube: I see many guitarists with a great ability to transcribe solos, and then play them over the original solo. None of this is new, but recently I came across two cases, people who transcribed more than 100 solos or more from the entire history of Jazz, and very varied instruments etc. One in particular impressed me so much by the amount of solos, that I immediately thought "he must be tremendous improvising with all this information/training", I immediately began to look for some live performance, I wanted to hear him improvise! I had high expectations, finally I found some live performances, and it was a big disappointment! He barely played well, barely... and creatively not too original...
The question to debate listening to opinions: what is behind that?
Greetings to all
-
10-30-2024 12:17 AM
-
Playing a solo rote and actually isolating vocab and internalizing it, plus having a command of the mechanics are 2 different things. Same principle as classical players who can't improvise a lick. You don't learn a solo and then all of a sudden gain the ability to play at that level, you have to build up your own chops naturally.
-
I wouldn't call it a dichotomy, I'd say it was practically the inevitable result of a life given over to imitation and conformity.
Originally Posted by Stbatz
-
I've hardly done any transcribing at all. Anyway, I see transcribing as "ear training", that's all there is to it (besides developing some technique due to forcing your fingers to go where perhaps they wouldn't normally go). I've sometimes isolated a phrase/half a phrase/a few notes that I really liked from a given solo because I wanted to try to incorporate it in my vocabulary, or in order to understand what was going on in relation to the changes... nothing more than that.
It's an excercise for the ear and fingers, that's all. Just doing that won't give you the ability to spontaneously improvise like the author of that solo.
-
There's some skill involved in transcribing, memorising and playing cleanly along with complex jazz solos.
To compose them yourself takes 100x that skill.
To improvise them yourself to that level ... x 1000
so...
-
It seems like a good conclusion to me, I totally agree.
-
It's the difference between memorization and internalization. The latter is comprised of relationships and connections to and among other things (abstract representations), the former is most about an isolated instance and the sequence of its components and their parts.
One of the ways to tell the difference is that internalization feels a bit like composing because it uses many of the same mental musical processes. Those who seek the creativity of improvisation hopefully discover that the habit of internalization is what provides the relationships and connections, and composability to support that.
-
He'd spent so much time trying to be like someone else he'd forgotten himself. Shame, really.
-
Basically what I find hard to believe is that that amount of work (100+ solos), does not leave at the individual who did it a benefit, even if it is tangential, that allows him to improve his skills as an improviser, even if it is by a small percentage, with all my respect to the one who did that exhaustive work, although, improvisation itself I think goes in another direction, beyond the need to control all the formal elements, I think the magic of improvising is taking a photo of the moment, that also means that every night can potentially be the best to the worst of your life, I think
-
As one who knows, the only way is to work it out yourself. No short cuts, just constant learning, trying, failing, doing some more. No other way, not if you want the real thing. And it comes by itself, unbidden.
I tend to record what I do. When I compare what I do now with, say, 5 years ago (which I thought was pretty good then) there's no comparison. It comes by itself, you can't make it come. There's only ever the moment.
-
I'm pretty sure that transcribing 100 solos makes you a great transcriber.
-
Transcribing whole solos is great for understanding how a musician tells a coherent story from start to finish. I think it encourages big picture thinking.
Unfortunately, transcribing whole solos is also like memorising speech. That's not how this music works.
Jazz is a language, and we acquire a language by learning small phrases. Only when we have enough vocabulary do we start stringing phrases together and speaking coherently.
So, players actually need to be spending a lot more time doing the small picture stuff first. It's unsexy hard work, but it's critical and foundational for fluency later on.
Take for example the humble Charleston rhythm. It's only 2 notes, but can the player sing/play it accurately anywhere in the bar? Can he/she construct an exciting solo with this one rhythm? Does he/she know how to connect this rhythm with another rhythm?Last edited by brent.h; 10-30-2024 at 08:41 AM.
-
There's your answer. Originally Posted by Stbatz
Improvisation impresses jazz musicians. Pretty small population.,
But lots of musicians can recognize the skill in playing along with a difficult transcription.
So it gets "likes." Validates the effort. That's what people want.
-
I may memorise a bunch of French poetry, and learn to recite it with a very good French accent and even know what it means, but still can't speak it (if you'll permit me this analogy). Originally Posted by Stbatz
-
Is it a recent video of them soloing? Are they playing a jazz tune?
-
There are many classical musicians who have a large repertoire of compositions (arguable even at a higher artistic level than jazz solos) under their belt but nevertheless they would have no clue how improvise. This is not a myth. I know professional classical musicians who fit this description perfectly. They would literally be terrified and not know what to do if you asked them to improvise. They are, of course, more than capable of learning improvisation but it is something you have to work on, it doesn't just happen when you memorize someone else's music.
-
People who come to jazz from other styles and haven't been immersed in jazz may benefit greatly from memorizing a solo (or a bob head) and playing it the way it was played in the recording.
The litmus test is this: Learn a solo you've never heard before from a transcription (notation or tab). When you play it if it sounds like country or classical music, you'll probably benefit from learning a solo or a chorus in its entirety as it was played by a jazz musician. That teaches you the intangibles of the language. Anyone who is able to build a solo from first principles or small phrases and play it in the jazz style probably has less to learn from whole solos. Solos are more useful for mining harmonic/rhythmic devices or phrases for the second group.
That said, playing a very challenging memorized solo very well probably takes more musicianship than improvising at a mediocre level.
-
You're looking at youtube videos, not jazz musicians in the real world. Moreover, because you've looked at a bunch of transcription videos you're causing youtube's algorithm to show you those disproportionately to the overall "population" of videos. You can't draw any general conclusions about the impact of transcription on improvisational abilities from this sample. There's the further reality that youtube (and the internet in general) is filled with people who talk extensively with an air of great authority about stuff they suck at. Originally Posted by Stbatz
Broadly speaking, I'd say that if you have a finite amount of time to practice and study music, and you devote nearly all that time to memorizing other people's solos and almost none improvising (especially with other people), you're probably not going to be able to improvise all that well. If that's the case with the people you're seeing, I'd say that explains it.
-
actually there are quite a few accomplished (and great names too) players who never transcribed complete solos… Originally Posted by Stbatz
I think it depends on personality
And it is not connected directly with personal creativity
-
Well, first of all nothing bad ever comes from transcribing. But the good can vary depending on what you do with it...transcribing just to be able to play it at tempo along with the recording is only one level of what you can gain from it.
I have adult ADD, so doing whole solos was never my thing. I wish it could be though. Instead I steal lots of licks.
I've found the best way, for me, is to learn to sing the bits I want to learn first. YMMV.
Transcribing is of course going to be a big part of what people in music school are doing. These young folks will likely already have pretty good chops, so why not get some likes on the gram in the process...at least, I'm assuming that's what their mindset is. Get themselves out there.
Don't underestimate the power of social media. Cecil Alexander, for example. A lot of people called him an "Instagram guitarist" In reality, they were intimidated by his monster chops...anyway, he's playing guitar with Christian Scott now. His social media posts got his name and ability out there.
-
I don't buy the premise of your post. I've seen some players who have claimed to do what you have said on Youtube and they are very solid and competent improvisors. I'd be wary of judging them off a few live recordings on youtube. Also, personal judgement of a player is just that. Whether they are top class improvisers is another question. Very few make it to that level and know one really knows what ingredients lead to that. Originally Posted by Stbatz
Guys like Wes Montgomery and Pat Metheney supposedly could play Charlie Christian and Wes' solos note for note.
-
You have to make use of the stuff you transcribe. Originally Posted by Stbatz
Playing the solo perfectly on YouTube will teach you a lot - not least technique - but it won't teach you to improvise.
-
Mimi Fox is known for having transcribed a great deal. She has the vocabulary you would expect from that and improvises at the highest level.
So it varies.
Apparently, a lot of players find transcription helpful.
I'm in the camp that has transcribed snippets and a couple of very short solos. I'm not recommending this approach, but I have trouble getting motivated to do an entire solo and then get frustrated getting it up to speed if it's fast. And by fast, I mean moderate.
-
You have to take things in context too. Jesse Van Ruller is quite well known for saying he's never transcribed a solo (along with Emily Remler, and Gary Burton among others) but I think you'd be in for a very rude awakening if one was to assume he didn't have a great ear.
For instance, if you want to be functional as a professional jazz musician you will often be in a position of learning tunes off the record. To improvise well with other people you need to hear what they are doing. There's way of working on ears other than transcribing. Other players have done bits and pieces but never a whole solo and so on.
So not transcribing solos is no excuse not to play music by ear. OTOH transcription, playing it back, and using bits of transcriptions for your own purposes represents a very complete activity for practice.
This is why I don't like the term 'transcription'. Frankly if you have to have a specific word for it you aren't doing enough of it! For the guys in the bop and swing era it was how they had to learn music - they didn't have the omnibook! And we should be learning and playing tunes and songs by ear as much as possible. It's part of being a musician.
-
Cmon Christian. It’s much easier to argue about the definition of the word transcribe. If I can show off that I’m able to use a dictionary, that’s worth at least 2 bars of a Parker head in internet points.
Reply With Quote
Is there a consensus on the best books for...
Today, 03:19 AM in Ear Training, Transcribing & Reading