Saturday, 30 January 2016
Jazz Guitar Scrapbook
I'm starting up a new Youtube channel to encapsulate my various rambling thoughts. This video talks about Warne Marsh's 2-octave major scale and the implications for upper extensions:
Saturday, 9 January 2016
To Transcribe or Not to Transcribe?
I recently did something I've never done and posted a video of me playing along to a famous jazz recording:
This is a solo I learned a while back, and analysed in great detail to the point where I would say a lot of Christian's vocabulary has been assimilated into my playing, hopefully in a way that's beyond 'canned licks.' It's amazing the value one can squeeze out of one solo - and taking it out of mothballs and getting up to speed taught me something new, to boot...
In any case, the arguments for and against transcription are similar to the those for and against metronome practice. There are many great players who learned by copying their favourite players and a significant minority of great players who have taken a very different approach.
The arguments for include; the very holistic and rich nature of learning and studying solos as a practice activity; the value of tradition; the importance of knowing your history; the value of learning jazz in that same way as you would learn a spoken language. Those against warn against the traps of slavish imitation; the importance of avoiding canned material in solos and so on.
Methodologies for learning an studying solos are also diverse - ranging from those who learn to sing solos by ear form start to finish, to those who work on a few licks in isolation; from those who write everything down, to those who play everything right away.
Added to these direct arguments is a larger tension - between the conservative, traditionalist elements of jazz culture and the more liberal, radical elements. It's my belief every musician has to find a balance between these forces (Pat Metheny elucidates this nicely in a recent interview.)
Personally I love finding out about the tradition, but I have no interest in simply playing historical styles. But others couldn't care less about this, and are happy to develop their own style that works for them. Transcription may well form part of their study, but they are not interested in a chronology of who played what when. Others are interested only in mastering one specific historical language. And of course, people change their interests over time.
People can get pretty heated about these differences in approach. To me, this kind of thing seems a waste of energy. If you are truly secure in what you are doing then why get emotionally involved in what other people do?
Personally, I am comfortable that my knowledge of Charlie Christian's playing hasn't diluted my own style. If I chose to pastiche Christian, I do so very self consciously. In the end I play in my own style, and I think it will take more than learning a few jazz solos to cure me of that :-)
I would recommend transcription to any musician looking to develop their skills and knowledge, but I wouldn't insist on it. In the end, I think Hal Galper puts it best:
This is a solo I learned a while back, and analysed in great detail to the point where I would say a lot of Christian's vocabulary has been assimilated into my playing, hopefully in a way that's beyond 'canned licks.' It's amazing the value one can squeeze out of one solo - and taking it out of mothballs and getting up to speed taught me something new, to boot...
In any case, the arguments for and against transcription are similar to the those for and against metronome practice. There are many great players who learned by copying their favourite players and a significant minority of great players who have taken a very different approach.
The arguments for include; the very holistic and rich nature of learning and studying solos as a practice activity; the value of tradition; the importance of knowing your history; the value of learning jazz in that same way as you would learn a spoken language. Those against warn against the traps of slavish imitation; the importance of avoiding canned material in solos and so on.
Methodologies for learning an studying solos are also diverse - ranging from those who learn to sing solos by ear form start to finish, to those who work on a few licks in isolation; from those who write everything down, to those who play everything right away.
Added to these direct arguments is a larger tension - between the conservative, traditionalist elements of jazz culture and the more liberal, radical elements. It's my belief every musician has to find a balance between these forces (Pat Metheny elucidates this nicely in a recent interview.)
Personally I love finding out about the tradition, but I have no interest in simply playing historical styles. But others couldn't care less about this, and are happy to develop their own style that works for them. Transcription may well form part of their study, but they are not interested in a chronology of who played what when. Others are interested only in mastering one specific historical language. And of course, people change their interests over time.
People can get pretty heated about these differences in approach. To me, this kind of thing seems a waste of energy. If you are truly secure in what you are doing then why get emotionally involved in what other people do?
Personally, I am comfortable that my knowledge of Charlie Christian's playing hasn't diluted my own style. If I chose to pastiche Christian, I do so very self consciously. In the end I play in my own style, and I think it will take more than learning a few jazz solos to cure me of that :-)
I would recommend transcription to any musician looking to develop their skills and knowledge, but I wouldn't insist on it. In the end, I think Hal Galper puts it best:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)