The Value of Transcribing - Learning Jazz Improvisation

[cosmic gumbo]

Dave Liebman is a monster player and educator with strong feelings about the value of transcribing.David Liebman: Educational Articles

As far as imitate, assimilate, innovate.....the following is an excerpt from a
Freddie Hubbard Downbeat profile......

Philly Joe was the first one who hired me to work at Birdland. It was a Monday night session, and we were playing “Two Bass Hit.” I had copied Miles’ solo note-for-note. When I opened my eyes, I saw him sitting down at the front of the stage. I almost had a heart attack!* I knew he was thinking, “Who is this motherfucker playing my solo?”* Anyway, he saw me make up my own ideas, and right there in Birdland he told Alfred Lion to give me a contract.

[pushkar000]

Hey gang. There has been some loose, discombobulated talk about this so I thought I'd start a clean, clear thread about it.

Assumption: "Jazz transcription" means writing it down and committing it to paper. No more, no less. It doesn't mean for example, that you can play it.


1. Learning Jazz improvisation - is transcription effective/valuable?

2. If yes, why? If not, why not?

3. For each person who responds, what do the first TWO PARTS of "Imitate, Assimilate, Innovate mean to you?

1. Negligible.

2. Just writing it has no use apart from a little ear training. (Not a part of the question, but if you were to analyse/play it, it would have more use)

3. Imitate : to copy things masters play. Assimilate : Letting those things sink in your mind and ear by both playing and listening.

[Hep To The Jive]

I think you meant Doug Raney and Chet Baker! a Doug Raney and Chet Atkins record would be ... different!

But I agree that's a great solo - I've been listening to that track too, in fact I intend to transcribe Chet's solo as well as Doug's.

I don't think the process works for me in those terms, I mean I know that I won't reproduce those solos in actual playing, and I don't really want to. What happens is that some elements of what I've learned rub off on my playing. For example I spent some time playing a couple of Jimmy Raney solos a few years ago, I really memorised them. But within a couple of weeks I couldn't remember them properly, and now I've forgotten them. But I know that my playing improved because of it. Better note choices, better ideas, better rhythms and phrasing, more inventive use of chromatic runs, etc. - I got a lot of benefit out of just those 2 solos. In fact I could hear better ideas in my head afterwards, without even picking up the guitar. And that stuff has stayed with me.

So I'm not worried about reproducing someone's solo or exact phrases - I don't think that's the benefit. It's more intangible than that. At least that's how it seems to work for me.

Yes, of course, Chet Baker, not Chet Atkins, hahaha, what was I thinking?

Everything you said makes sense, and that's how I tend to think in terms of benefit of transcribing as well. The only thing is, and it's a little upsetting, some solos are better saved in my memory than others. For example, Charlie Christians licks are not a problem at all to reproduce at any time. So why CC but not Raney? Is it because Raney licks are harder to internalize objectively, or is it just me? Does it mean I have to work harder at it than at CC solos to get them to sink in? Maybe I just I leave it alone for a while, and comeback to it later and try again.

[BigToe]

transcribing or not transcribing is not the right variable when trying to achieve a high level of improvisational playing. Also, being a good improviser is not the ultimate goal of being a good jazz musician. I've met 3 year olds who are great improvisers, doesn't make them great jazz musicians.
More importantly than becoming a better improviser (whatever that means) there are undeniable benefits to developing page written transcribing and arranging skills. It makes one a better musician not only in the act of transcribing (understanding music in a multidimensional way) but in the opportunities that open due to having extra skill sets on the bandstand. when I'm with a group of players we discuss the music and especially the arrangement. When someone suggests we should move the DS to the second repeat of the C it's imperative that everyone knows what he/she is talking about. What good are you if you can "improvise" but have poor skill sets when it comes to discussing a chart? Maybe you can play the opening to Tutu but can you communicate it to others? I recently got a gig as MD for a jazz tap dancing show with three horns and full rhythm section. I got it because I can take a youtube video and arrange the music for the band. that's how the dancers communicated what they wanted musically. I'll be the first to admit there are those that improvise far better than me but who cares? Improvising is a life long learning endeavour. Getting on the bandstand and contributing your talents as part of a group is more valuable musically speaking than wanking over a Dm chord.

Kenny Werner has a great book called Effortless Mastery and it's all about being a better improviser. Spoiler, it has nothing to do with transcribing or not transcribing.

[kris]

do like masters do....transcribe solos or parts of solos and learn from them!!!

[Aora Blue]

I transcribe solos that would benefit me a lot. I have a general idea of how I want to sound and improvise so I choose solos that use the ideas I want to incorporate into my own playing. Right now, I'm transcribing (not actually writing it down) Lee Morgan's solo on I'm Old Fashioned. Lee Morgan has a certain aggressiveness and style that really suites how I want to sound.
One should transcribe solos or players that they really like and that fits well with their own vision of improvising. For example, I really like Charlie Parker and Lee Morgan, but my last solo I transcribed was a Clifford Brown solo and I quickly realized that his playing did not fit with my own sound so I moved on to the next solo. Although I still was able to get a few ideas out of it and improve my technique.

To answer the imitate/ assimilate question, what that means to me is to imitate or copy solos or licks you really like that fits in your own vision of improvising. Then you gotta assimilate the solos and licks playing them in every key and applying them to tunes so they become a part of your language that you can hear in your head and be able to add notes, drop notes, combine language, and do what you please.

[tyjbeck]

I'm sure someone has said this. But while learning a solo by ear, simultaneously take lines, learn them in all 12 keys all across the fretboard. Learn them backwards, rhythmically variate them, invert them on the staff, and then finally begin writing your own lines. It's a lot of work, but what is generated over time is very fruitful.

[christianm77]

I've got a lot out of transcribing things. There are numerous ways you can go about transcription and numerous things you can do with solos once you've transcribed them.... The posts on this forum give a good idea of that.

For me, I've got more into writing things down swiftly and not bothering to play them, which is totally against what I was doing a few months back. The reason is that's what I'm working on.

I have heard it said that directly using transcribed material is not a valid way to learn to improvise, but I'm sure there are opinions both ways....

[Epistrophy]

It's very individual thing how we learn things to our system. For me it's being able to sing the solo and learning it through repetition with my instrument everything learned by ear. And it all should happen without writing the solo down. After the solo is well internalised, one should be able to play the solo without the original soloist, along with the metronome only, or without the metronome. That is the ideal situation of learning a solo, and that is the whole idea of transcribing. That is how Wes did it, and many more jazz greats in the past, they didn't know how to write notes. They hardly did know any theory. After that it is about mixing the ideas of the original solo and using one's own ideas as the point of departure, playing in the style of original solo, and moving those ideas to other tunes. It's already much when one is mixing own ideas to the ideas from the solo learned by ear. That is how it works with me. That is how I have really found my own playing style and how one can understand that it's more than just scales that jazz improvisation is about. There are some solos that are more abstract, like George Coleman's solo over "Stella by Starlight" from Miles Davis's album My Funny Valentine, I transcribed it years ago only because it sounded cool. There is more outside playing in it, and might not be a good starting point to create consistent bebop vocabulary, but there are other solos that are great for that. All can be done by oneself, no schools are needed for that. I can call myself self-educated jazz musician in that sense, that is how I have gained the best part of my musical training besides playing with people and listening and playing some Bach in addition to all that. Hope this helps. Leave a comment.

Epistrophy

[christianm77]

It lives!!!! They said it couldn’t be done!!!!! They said I was mad!!!!

[pauln]

Transcribing, composing, playing, and improvising use the same underlying ability to convert either external or internal sound into played sound.

Making marks on paper is incidental... if presented with a score, sheet music, lead sheet, or symbolic chord progression for a song, I don't think you would call it "transcribing" if you sat down and played it, would you? You don't transcribe symbolic representations - the incidental paper mark results of a previous transcription.

[Epistrophy]

Jazz Transcription & Transcribing Solos Is NOT What You Think It Is • Jazz Advice

That link above says it all.

[Jazzstdnt]

Jazz Transcription & Transcribing Solos Is NOT What You Think It Is • Jazz Advice

That link above says it all.

I used to get the newsletter from those guys, it's OK. I believe that they come from the academic world, much like I do.

I can tell you that at Berklee transcribing means to both write it AND play it. No shortcuts.

When it comes to self-study, I think that playing it is the overwhelming priority, if you want to choose either/or. ("Imitate").

But committing it to paper helps you check to see if you've really got it right, and it helps with analysis, while your guitar resides in its case. ("Assimilate")

Lots of great solos are already transcribed out there (Charlie, Wes, Joe, Kenny, plus Jim Hall, George Benson, and a little bit of McLaughlin). But great solos are still being made, and styles continue to evolve, so.....

[Epistrophy]

I used to get the newsletter from those guys, it's OK. I believe that they come from the academic world, much like I do.

I can tell you that at Berklee transcribing means to both write it AND play it. No shortcuts.

When it comes to self-study, I think that playing it is the overwhelming priority, if you want to choose either/or. ("Imitate").

But committing it to paper helps you check to see if you've really got it right, and it helps with analysis, while your guitar resides in its case. ("Assimilate")

Lots of great solos are already transcribed out there (Charlie, Wes, Joe, Kenny, plus Jim Hall, George Benson, and a little bit of McLaughlin). But great solos are still being made, and styles continue to evolve, so.....

It's true, writing it down helps one to break the solo into pieces, that could be done after learning the solo well. I used to do that too. To see what's happening. I am not writing anymore so much. I still have some of those old transcriptions that I tried to notate as a novice, they sure have some mistakes here and there, since I wasn't so good at notating back then. But consider Wes imitating some Charlie Christian and being able to play those solos note to note. Wes couldn't read notes or couldn't talk about music, he talked about other things since he didn't really know how to talk about music, theoretically. When he talked with people, he talked about other things besides music, that is what I have heard about him, don't remember the exact sources. That is something that I always wonder, how he was as good as he was without hardly knowing anything about the theory and all that stuff. Same thing with Stan Getz. No theory knowledge.
In the end I think it's about something that cannot be told by anyone, why certain things sound as they sound, why Wes or Bird or Trane sound as they sound, well, some theory might help to define some of those things that he played, motifs, triads etc, so being specific when analyzing is one way to go. Some players do pentatonics and that is also good to know, and put it to those concepts to one's practise routine when playing over a standard, to really be aware of what concepts to use while improvising, but that is practising. Playing is an intuitive process. When it comes to me, I never really have thought of anything theoretically, really. For me it's enough if I am able to sing the solo and play it with my instrument by heart, and mix and assimilate those ideas to my own playing. With me it's all beyond the theory, I guess.

[Jazzstdnt]

Sure, many have used the ear almost exclusively (especially horn players who have no choice to play anything other than a single note or monophonic line). Sheer will has done/can do impressive things.

But knowledge is power. It can only help, not hurt.

[christianm77]

I think it’s possible to become distracted by irrelevant bullshit

[christianm77]

I say that from experience lol

[Epistrophy]

Sure, many have used the ear almost exclusively (especially horn players who have no choice to play anything other than a single note or monophonic line). Sheer will has done/can do impressive things.

But knowledge is power. It can only help, not hurt.

Exactly. That is why it's more than about aural tradition, when it comes to jazz education nowadays. It has it's benefits.

This is wise man here:

Tells everything how things used to be, in the beginning of the video.

Cheers.