How did the greats learn how to play?

[joe2758]

I can only assume you are speaking of DVDs

[ragman1]

Thank you. Yes, I forgot DVDs and videos too!

I was serious, the old guys had nothing except maybe records, live shows, the radio, word of mouth, groups of friends, and all that. And, if they were lucky, some time with recognised players. They had to search for what they wanted.

I learnt from Bert Weedon's Play In A Day and records, lifting the arm up and down endlessly. And I was no poor, black kid.

[rpjazzguitar]

What I've read is that Wes played tenor guitar from a younger age than 19, which is when he started 6 string guitar.

He learned Charlie Christian solos and then got gigs playing them -- and then laying out. I think it's clear that he advanced by having a great ear for harmony, rhythm and sound.

Charlie Christian was clearly influenced by Lester Young and then brought his own terrific ear and creativity. I've never read about what he practiced, but I think it's a safe bet that he copied some Lester and practiced playing through tunes.

I doubt that either one of them spent a lot of time trying to master double time passages at high tempo. And, how do you practice coming up with novel, brilliant improvised passages?

[ragman1]

Did you know Joan Baez never sung the blues? She refused because she said 'I ain't poor, I ain't black, and I ain't oppressed!'. True.

[Bobby Timmons]

The bot is just Google's greatest hits, which is why I also chat to it where I wanna save time, but like the rest of Google, it's hardly definitive or accurate in this instance.

You're mad at the bot. That's really ridiculous to try to write that off completely. It gives you pretty accurate info, not 100% accurate, but pretty good. Certainly several times more accurate than the peanut gallery. It summarizes everything concisely which would take you days if you were trying to track down the most reliable sources possible and then summarize the info. And you can talk to it and and refine your query.

It's clear the knowledge came from the "street" rather than from any pedagogy.

And here you are pushing bunk info. The street component was more emphasized than it is today, but it still came from both. Charlie Parker advocated for music education in an audio interview.

Wes did not start playing at 19! That was when he got his first 6 string, he was playing tenor guitar (4 strings) from the age of 12.

Bot fact check.

But alas we'll never know how they did it.

That's a bit silly to say that. Some info is shrouded. Some we have a complete record of. And we have some interviews where we have the player himself explaining his complete process of development. In the Bill Evans tape, he said he learned classical as a child, couldn't improv at all until he learned about harmony when he was 13, then continued to learn on the job as he grew up.

I think the bot's summary is very good that they listened and transcribed to learn, they had early work experience for practical development, and they had some colloquial education like school, church, or mentors, and in some cases formal education.

[ragman1]

Charlie Parker advocated for music education in an audio interview.

Ah, now there's a thing. A lot of pro players of yesteryear said that because they knew there were gaps in their knowledge. Also I recall Martin Taylor saying that too.

But what I'm seriously wondering is, if all these guys had gone to, say, Berklee and went through the mill of all that, would they had been as good as they were? Would they have played the same? Or would it have formulated their playing?

What I'm saying is that education conditions us and we come out the result of their system. Mind you, if they'd taught themselves originally (not in isolation from others) and then went to jazz school it's possible it would have made them even better... although somehow I doubt it.

[AllanAllen]

In your hypothetical, do they still have access to the music and dance scene of the 1930s?

Like Altar said Gigging 7 days a week with the same band is the secret sauce we don't have these days.

[Bobby Timmons]

I ponder that too.

Ah, now there's a thing. A lot of pro players of yesteryear said that because they knew there were gaps in their knowledge. Also I recall Martin Taylor saying that too.

Because that was his approach to learning..

But what I'm seriously wondering is, if all these guys had gone to, say, Berklee and went through the mill of all that, would they had been as good as they were? Would they have played the same? Or would it have formulated their playing?

I doubt when a player is that talented that education would make them worse.. Many great players literally are educated but it's downplayed as if it is a bad thing.

What I'm saying is that education conditions us and we come out the result of their system. Mind you, if they'd taught themselves originally (not in isolation from others) and then went to jazz school it's possible it would have made them even better... although somehow I doubt it.

It might change them though. I notice myself being molded by Open Studio, but I think it's a good thing. You can always choose to pursue the approach or style you want.

[jameslovestal]

Wes learned Charlie Christian solos and then got gigs playing them -- and then laying out.

I've never read about what Charlie Christian practiced, but I think it's a safe bet that he copied some Lester and practiced playing through tunes.

I'm curious how they did practice; I.e. what they did to get better.

E.g. take Wes: did he transcribe those Christian solos? Or did he just play over a recording, playing a record, over and over again?

Same goes for Christian with how he copied some Lester Young. How did he practiced playing through tunes? Did he have recorded backing tracks? Other musicians would come and play so he could practice?

Now I've been told the old greats mostly learned by "ear" (listening). That sounds logical but doing that without modern technology would have been difficult (e.g. one can't put a record on "repeat").

But asking another musician to provide a transcription and using that paper method, over and over, requires only one's time.

[AllanAllen]

Repertoire and gigs man.

Morning gig at a hotel lobby, lunch gig at a restaurant, happy hour trio at a bar, dinner gig at a supper club, dance gig at night, then over to Minton's to jam until 7am.

[ragman1]

In your hypothetical, do they still have access to the music and dance scene of the 1930s?

I don't see why not.

[ragman1]

You can always choose to pursue the approach or style you want.

But only after you've absorbed it, which takes time.

[Bobby Timmons]

Yeah, you want to curate what you work on and absorb so you program in good stuff and not wack stuff.

[pamosmusic]

I'm curious how they did practice; I.e. what they did to get better.

E.g. take Wes: did he transcribe those Christian solos? Or did he just play over a recording, playing a record, over and over again?

Same goes for Christian with how he copied some Lester Young. How did he practiced playing through tunes? Did he have recorded backing tracks? Other musicians would come and play so he could practice?

Now I've been told the old greats mostly learned by "ear" (listening). That sounds logical but doing that without modern technology would have been difficult (e.g. one can't put a record on "repeat").

But asking another musician to provide a transcription and using that paper method, over and over, requires only one's time.

There are apocryphal stories about Bird having to buy multiple copies of Coleman Hawkins records because the needle would wear a hole through the grooves in the spots he was trying to learn.

Also old stories about people marking records with chalk to try and find the same spot and stuff like that.

They have the air of “uphill both ways in the snow” but I think there are enough of them with enough overlap to say that they transcribed the way we do, just without the aid of technology, and that by and large they didn’t write them down.

Beyond that not sure. Allens certainly right about just the quantity of gigs. So an hour of transcribing and bringing a lick up to tempo probably goes a long way when you’re jetting off immediately to a six hour dance band gig with decent musicians every night

[jameslovestal]

There are apocryphal stories about Bird having to buy multiple copies of Coleman Hawkins records because the needle would wear a hole through the grooves in the spots he was trying to learn.

Also old stories about people marking records with chalk to try and find the same spot and stuff like that.

They have the air of “uphill both ways in the snow” but I think there are enough of them with enough overlap to say that they transcribed the way we do, just without the aid of technology, and that by and large they didn’t write them down.

Beyond that not sure. Allens certainly right about just the quantity of gigs. So an hour of transcribing and bringing a lick up to tempo probably goes a long way when you’re jetting off immediately to a six hour dance band gig with decent musicians every night

Note that when I mentioned transcribing (especially for a solo), I said that these musicians would use someone else's written-on-paper transcription. This was intentional because I couldn't even conceive how one would be able to transcribe "the way we do" without more modern technology. (but that is because, if the music is fairly complex (fast, many notes), I have to listen to it many, many times to get it down (and then record it and compare it to a recording), rinse\repeat until I have it down.

But like slight reading complex material, I should have assumed there are musicians that can listen to the music only a few times and be able to either put it to paper or put it into that mystical muscle memory!

[Bach5G]

There are apocryphal stories about Bird having to buy multiple copies of Coleman Hawkins records because the needle would wear a hole through the grooves in the spots he was trying to learn.

Also old stories about people marking records with chalk to try and find the same spot and stuff like that.

They have the air of “uphill both ways in the snow” but I think there are enough of them with enough overlap to say that they transcribed the way we do, just without the aid of technology, and that by and large they didn’t write them down.

Beyond that not sure. Allens certainly right about just the quantity of gigs. So an hour of transcribing and bringing a lick up to tempo probably goes a long way when you’re jetting off immediately to a six hour dance band gig with decent musicians every night

There’s a story about Duane Allman being able to pick up the tonearm of his record player with a big toe and set it back down on the record precisely at the start of the lick he was trying to learn.

[pamosmusic]

Note that when I mentioned transcribing (especially for a solo), I said that these musicians would use someone else's written-on-paper transcription. This was intentional because I couldn't even conceive how one would be able to transcribe "the way we do" without more modern technology. (but that is because, if the music is fairly complex (fast, many notes), I have to listen to it many, many times to get it down (and then record it and compare it to a recording), rinse\repeat until I have it down.

Honestly I don’t think I understood what you meant with the other musicians on paper part.

But like slight reading complex material, I should have assumed there are musicians that can listen to the music only a few times and be able to either put it to paper or put it into that mystical muscle memory!

And yeah I’m sure Bird had a wild ear, but also the story would imply that he probably had to listen to the same passages hundreds of times. That’s probably no small part of how guys like him acquired their superhuman ears. Again … whether or not the story is true, strictly speaking, is another matter.

[Mick-7]

But like slight reading complex material, I should have assumed there are musicians that can listen to the music only a few times and be able to either put it to paper or put it into that mystical muscle memory!

So called "perfect pitch" is a superb aural memory, and like other forms of memory, there are degrees of it. For example, I knew a guy in high school with perfect pitch who could tell you what notes you played on a piano, e.g., play a random chord and he could tell you what it was. He was a mediocre musician though because he rested on this laurel, thinking it would allow him to be competent without serious musical study and practice - that didn't work.

[AllanAllen]

If you turn a 33 1/3 LP down to 16 it’s half speed and an octave lower.

That’s how I read they used to do it.

[Mick-7]

If you turn a 33 1/3 LP down to 16 it’s half speed and an octave lower.

That’s how I read they used to do it.

There were only 78 rpm records up until about 1959, don't know if they could be slowed down - believe they could. The 33/45 rpm records came later, and we had to do what you suggested to confirm conspiracy theories, for example, slow down Strawberry Fields Forever to hear John Lennon say, "I buried Paul." You got to feel like a investigative reporter for about 6 seconds, which is longer than the average Fox News commentator can attain now-a-days.

[rpjazzguitar]

I've never read anything indicating that either Wes or CC actually wrote out what they heard on records.

My guess is that it took some time to work out the lines and they memorized them in the process.

BTW, CC would have used 78s. Other speeds came later.

Chatgpt says that some record players in the 30s did have multiple speeds (in anticipation of later formats) but they were either 45 or 33 1/3 - so it wasn't an octave.

To hear the passage again, you picked up the tonearm (the part with the needle) and put it back down before the part you wanted to re-hear. Pain in the neck. Later record players usually had 33 and 16 (omitting the fractions) and some players used the 16 setting for figuring things out. But no loops.

[AllanAllen]

Yeah I can’t remember who said that, but it’s someone still alive. Maybe it was in George Benson’s autobiography.

Sorry, this was an unhelpful anecdote.

[digger]

But like slight reading complex material, I should have assumed there are musicians that can listen to the music only a few times and be able to either put it to paper or put it into that mystical muscle memory!

A friend from school, and the guy that got me into guitar, used to transcribe all the time. He's still the best guitar player I know. He left school and toured the world with rock bands, and still plays in that genre professionally. His learning method was to transcribe, transcribe, transcribe (I mean that in a non-literal modern sense of learning a solo from listening to it, but not writing it down) and back then we did it by listening to vinyl records, lifting the arm, and repeating, over and over, I literally wore out my version of Johnny Be Good doing this and still didn't get every note. Nick was so good at it he would nail numerous solos a week. He was a rocker so learned pretty much entire Blackmore's Rainbow albums, and Ozzy Osborne records, Van Halen, Rush, and so on. Chords, rhythm parts, leads etc. When cassette tapes came in he used that. I don't think I ever saw him with a book or a magazine, just listening and learning. Everything he needed was in the music.

I suspect that the greats did the same; and particular in the early days the solos they were learning weren't so fast. Hell, even I can "hear" most of the notes in Louis Armstrong and Lester Young solos (although some of the clarinet players of the time did put their foot down a little).

These days, through the use of technology, I find I'm finally able to transcribe a decent amount of material too. It's making a world of difference to my playing.

[grahambop]

Yeah I can’t remember who said that, but it’s someone still alive. Maybe it was in George Benson’s autobiography.

Sorry, this was an unhelpful anecdote.

The Charlie Parker biography by Ross Russell (Bird Lives) says that Parker had a portable record player which had an adjustment which lowered the speed of the turntable (it doesn’t say by how much). He used this to learn loads of Lester Young solos by ear while on a summer job with a dance band in the Ozarks in 1937. (He was also taking lessons from the band’s pianist).

Supposedly when he returned to the city from this job, his playing had taken a massive leap forwards.

[princeplanet]

There were only 78 rpm records up until about 1959, don't know if they could be slowed down - believe they could. The 33/45 rpm records came later, and we had to do what you suggested to confirm conspiracy theories, for example, slow down Strawberry Fields Forever to hear John Lennon say, "I buried Paul." You got to feel like a investigative reporter for about 6 seconds, which is longer than the average Fox News commentator can attain now-a-days.

Heard a rumor once that probably isn't true, but is it possible that by scratching into a record you could force it to loop on a short section that might have been used as a backing track to practice against? Can't see how a loop could be made long enough...