Support |
----- Original Message ----- > with homicide, it's all in the intent. Transcription without a doubt > improves ear training, which is crucial for improvisation. I think this is what is debatable, you think? I mean, you wouldn't force feed this learning approach on all learners I hope....? That seems a bit unfair, given all the different types of learning styles and learners out there. This is why modern learning technology incorporates learning methods that address most all major learning styles - textual, verbal, visual, kinesthetic, etc. It is a real injustice that many music students have probably given up their instruments because some old school teacher has attempted to force a particular learning approach on them, that didn't complement their individual learning styles. It's a tradegy in my opinion, and very sad. For me, transcription did nothing but take time and elongate/burden the learning process. I could learn phrases and licks 50 times faster by ear. So, again in my own personal experience, transcription served no value except to take more time. I already know how to notate music and read it (even sight read basic material), so transcribing stuff that someone else already wrote was really a clunky and inefficient way of learning their technique, etc. For me, it just didn't add up how transcribing something that someone else already created, could help me be a better improviser. It went against the grain of my personal learning style, which is the main point here. Really interesting topic. Kris I do it all > the time myself, informally when listening to music, trying to nail the > chord progression and picturing the melody on the fretboard, then going >to > the guitar and seeing how correct I was. Every once in a great while >I'll > write out the rhythmic values. > > Now, during my time in music school I was constantly harangued to > transcribe things in order to "learn a lick and then practice it in all >12 > keys". I felt then, and still feel, that this is a terrible approach to > improvisation. Stringing pre-fab phrases together...ack. What good is >that > going to do anyone, except to make it seem as if you have an >understanding > of music you actually don't, and have ideas you don't? I simply refused > this approach (didn't help my grades). > > My feeling is that, if you can hum a little melody, you can improvise. > Practice should be oriented toward making it so that playing your > instrument is easy as humming; the goal is that all thought should go >into > the music you want to hear coming out, not the technical task of playing > the instrument. > > Daryl Shawn > www.swanwelder.com > www.chinapaintingmusic.com > >> You disagree with my own experience of transcription? How the heck is >> that possible? That's like me saying I like strawberry icecream better >> than vanilla, and you disagreeing. :) My own experience and my >learning >> style contradicts everything you say below. That's just one person's >> learning style vs. millions of others. >> >> Kris >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >>>>> I also like Bailey's interpretation of the value of transcribing in >>>>> jazz or in learning to improvise. I've never found that as a useful >>>>> tool, in terms of making me a better player or increasing my >>>>> improvisation skills...maybe making it easier for me to copy other >>>>> players' licks and clichés, but nothing from a creative standpoint. >>> >>> I have to disagree with this. I suppose if you go into transcription >>> with the goal of hijacking somebody else's style, that's all you'll >get >>> out of it. But transcription is an excellent form of ear training, and >I >>> would argue that good ears are, if anything, even more important in >>> authentic free playing than in the mainstream. And nothing says you >have >>> to restrict your transcription to solo instruments. Try to pry apart >>> some of Maria Schneider's dense large-ensemble jazz voicings; even >>> though I can do it imperfectly, I think it can greatly improve one's >>> clarity of expression. >>> >>> Brian >>> >> >> >