-
I don't see any negatives to taking the extra step and writing things down. I wish I was better at that actually.
Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
-
01-17-2015 11:22 PM
-
This is becoming increasingly important for me personally. Not so much to learn the actual thinking processes of the greats, but to develop my own thinking process, my system if you will. You mention Pat and I find that I can't really hear all the Wes lines he reportedly "lifted" in his own playing. I assume these were supplanted at some stage by Pat's own system of employing his favourite devices in addition to perhaps his "hidden" usage of lifted vocab. Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
So my point is that there is another level beyond merely knowing many lines lifted via transcription. Even if you became adept at breaking them up and stitching them together. This for me is not as satisfying as developing my own system that enables me to create my own lines out of combining devices, not prefab sections of lines.
Consider classic era Sonny Rollins vs Sonny Stitt (as exemplified on Eternal Triangle from Diz's Sunny Side Up). If they did 10 takes I'm certain you would hear the same fragments from Stitt time and time again, whereas with Rollins, he would spin out new lines all the time. If you wanted to transcribe them both, at some point you'd probably realise that if you knew enough Bird lines, there was nothing new to be gleaned from Stitt. But with Rollins, his never-to-be-repeated "off the cuff" ideas could be excellent fodder for the transcriber's bag of lines.
Hence my point in my earlier post: Play lines that others will want to transcribe, that don't sound like they've come from the transcription of others. Or be a "lick machine" like Sonny Stitt - not that there's anything wrong with that!
....
-
I don't either. I'm all for it. Learning how to write (and read) music notation is part of being a musician. My point was that one can learn by ear without transcribing (-writing it down). More strongly, when people talk about learning by ear they usually DON'T mean "transcribing." Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
-
Re: writing down or not
First of all, regardless of what Webster says, the word "transcribe" is often used pretty loosely in jazz circles, but the nuts and bolts of it is learning things by ear off records.
Personally, I simply have to write down some longer or more complex lines to get 'em straight in my head!
I've often thought of compiling a little notebook of ideas, but the truth is, collecting licks doesn't help me internalize 'em, only using them does.
Lastly, the slow downer programs and stuff are great, but they're sort of cheating your ear. It's okay to admit you can't hear something, and sometimes getting the "general idea" of a difficult lick by ear is more valuable than a note perfect rendition you copped by slowing down. Just my opinion.
-
We must travel in different circles. I've never met anyone (else) who called learning licks off of records "transcribing." Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
Should you Google "jazz guitar transcriptions," what would you expect to find?
I expect to find things like the following.
Khan's Korner 1 - Transcriptions by Steve Khan
Jazz Guitar Transcriptions: Great Solos by Great Guitarists
Free Jazz Guitar Transcriptions, download pdf and print
-
Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
It's just slang, the process is the same. To me a lick, riff, motif are tend to be short a few bars. When people "pull off" another term long sections they will say they transcribed something. I would say transcribe for many also means they analyzed it and studied it, but people (hopefully) study the licks they do "take downs" on.
Our language is full of overloaded words and terms.Last edited by docbop; 01-18-2015 at 02:44 PM.
-
Actually, 'transcription' is not slang. It's a clearly defined term. Originally Posted by docbop
I'm glad that I now know that several people use the "transcription" loosely, to refer to learning any part of a recorded performance by ear. I have nothing against learning things by ear. And I can get used to people meaning by that 'transcription,' though I suppose I will have to be clearer in the future when referring to such things as the entries in the Omnibook.
-
Right. Originally Posted by docbop
Like I said, anything over a bar or two, of course I'm writing things down. But the process and reuse/assimilation is more important than the product.
-
"Scribe" means to put in writing. I wish there was a better word than "transcribe" for learning and analyzing a performance without writing it down. Maybe it's time to invent that word.
-
Good article and thread.
I'd be interested to hear about the specific approaches that people take to putting the lines they subscribe to work and internalising them. I think I have a problem with moving on to the next thing too quickly, and not getting as much as I should out of the process.
-
The advice of learning at actual tempo as a beginner never did it for me. I tried it and got burnt out. Slowing things down has allowed me to hear things at very fast tempos. I had to work up to this level. It was not easy...had to crawl before I could walk. So for me I wouldn't call it "cheating". Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
Last edited by smokinguit; 01-18-2015 at 04:06 PM.
-
I've never heard any professional claim that they were able to learn solos at full speed in the post-Parker era, either. All the old guys I've talked to laugh about slowing down the RPMs on their albums and learning things in a lower octave at half speed. Originally Posted by smokinguit
Outside of some total freaks like Art Tatum or Mozart, I seriously doubt there are people out there that could hear some of the crazy licks people are ripping off in the post-bop world and actually cop them at full speed.
-
All I'm saying is the hearing aspect of transcribing/copping is important. But I can still pick important notes out of stuff i can't hear completely...and that it's okay to transcribe "easy stuff."
I see people trying to start with Charlie Parker! Start with Chet Baker--doing the melody!
-
I have worked as a professional transcriber (never full time!) and for the most part, I transcribe at full speed. While I can see how slowing down rapid passages could be considered "cheating", there can be advantages to the process.
Consider it like talking a walk somewhere rather than driving. A lot more information can be picked up along the way that may otherwise be overlooked. I've come across many transcriptions where rapid series of notes with disjunct movement, chromatic density and rhythmic complexity are drastically misrepresented in a simplistic manner. Slowing down such passages may actually help the transcriber/player to listen more intently in the future and develop more critical faculties.
One other related advantage to slowing down a rapid musical passage is that the articulation becomes more apparent (e.g, swing ratio of quavers, slides, slurs, accents and grace notes), helping the transcriber to readily access some of the subtle qualities that bring a series of notes to life.
-
What's important for me(or what works for me) is to take smaller ideas. Often these notes are the "change" notes - the 4 or 5 notes that directly lead into the next chord. Originally Posted by Jehu
I've had little success trying to internalise longer ii-V phrases. I just can't remember them on the spot, its a hassle to memorise in multiple octaves and positions and other issues.
However if I take a nice "change" pattern, hearing and internalising them is easier, transposing them here and there is easier and I absorb it quickly and can use it in my playing. I can make my own notes around the specific "change" pattern, and this way I can adjust according to what I played before as well, while also avoiding being a "lick machine".
The longer licks are useful to analyse and see what the player did. The smaller fragments inside the longer lines are (for me) things that can be easily and comfortably used in one's own playing.
-
Guilty as charged! I use the term even when I'm not writing the solo out. In my defense, Sheryl Bailey uses it the same way when we are discussing the topic. She does make sure to clarify when she says "transcribe" that she is not worried about me writing the solo out but rather getting it under my fingers and pulling out the lines that really speak to me. Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
-
transcription is different from melodic dictation which is hearing something then writing it down. The key to transcription is learning to play what you hear on the instrument, notation is optional or secondary.
-
I've also had trouble working in full lines/phrases. I try to use them to try to understand what the player was thinking/visualising, but the result doesn't really seem to get internalised. That's an excellent tip, pushkar: focusing on those few notes that directly relate to the chord change. Might be the key. Originally Posted by pushkar000
(Sorry to derail the thread from quibbling over terminology.)
-
On this forum I stopped using the term transcribe because so many folks assume it always means writing down (scribe) when it often doesn't. It can also mean just copying solos or parts of solos from records w/o writing it down, which is much more in the jazz tradition than writing, we just have a language problem. Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
While googling "jazz transcriptions" (a noun) will give results for a written work, googling "transcribing jazz solos" (verb) will give results for a process description which often doesn't include "scribing" it onto paper. Even JazzAdvice.com, whose article is the source of this thread doesn't include writing as the main act or purpose of transcribing, neither does Matt Warnock and tons of other's giving jazz help.
Even a few well known jazz pros perpetuate the confusion by saying "I've never transcribed a solo" because they never wrote it down, but then they'll go on somewhere else to say they've learned/memorized many important solos of others, adding to the confusion.
I've found it safe to say that when most real jazzers are talking transcribing, they're talking about memorizing and learning solos from records, and when they mean to refer to writing it down, they will specifically mention writing.
Looks like it will continue to be a source of confusion, especially the ongoing remarks about it not being so valuable because it's copying someone else and not working on your own original lines. It's the most important step of imitate, assimilate, innovate, because it's the first step, and you can't do the others without doing this first.Last edited by cosmic gumbo; 01-19-2015 at 05:26 AM.
-
i think you're missing the point. Mr. Beaumont is probably trying to convey that for all intents and purposes learning lines from records is the same whether you chose to write it down or not. I'd even say that writing it down can be bad because it gives people the illusion that they've done something when in reality memorizing and learning it at tempo and dissecting the cool stuff is what's important. Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
as for people using the word transcribing when they aren't actually writing the music down ... I know tons of people that do that and call it transcribing. Myself included.
oh also ... http://jazzadvice.com/transcribing-i...ed-you-astray/
Last edited by pamosmusic; 01-19-2015 at 11:30 AM.
-
Exactly what I was thinking. Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
-
Just curious- how do you all feel about the fact that Jim Hall did only two solo transcriptions in his life? One was a Christian solo and one was a Barney Kessel solo. He talks about it in a master class video he did years ago that is on YouTube.
-
That was what I had heard. Or using tape machines and running things back at lower speed. Originally Posted by ecj
-
The serious jazz pros have ears so sharp it's scary. A Chet Baker solo that I might loop and slow down by 15% to learn over the course of an hour, the guy I study with can learn in the time it takes him to listen to the solo once. And I know he goes through periods where he won't slow down at all...he will learn everything at full speed. Originally Posted by ecj
I think the point is that although they may not capture everything copping at full speed, they can get most of it.
-
I agree. I grew up among players who learned from records almost exclusively. (That and jamming with friends, comparing notes.) But no one called this transcribing. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
And I'm fine with people using the term that way here. I'm no spoilsport. I'm glad that I now know when people here stress the importance of transcribing that this is all they mean. They'll get no argument from me.
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions