] [Thread Prev
Re: Derek Baily Improvisation TV
----- 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
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.
went against the grain of my personal learning style, which is the main
point here. Really interesting topic.
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
> the guitar and seeing how correct I was. Every once in a great while
> 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
> keys". I felt then, and still feel, that this is a terrible approach to
> improvisation. Stringing pre-fab phrases together...ack. What good is
> going to do anyone, except to make it seem as if you have an
> 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
> the music you want to hear coming out, not the technical task of playing
> the instrument.
> Daryl Shawn
>> 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
>> style contradicts everything you say below. That's just one person's
>> learning style vs. millions of others.
>> ----- 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
>>> out of it. But transcription is an excellent form of ear training, and
>>> would argue that good ears are, if anything, even more important in
>>> authentic free playing than in the mainstream. And nothing says you
>>> 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.