|
That is a good analogy, especially if we are
proposing the use of transcription to lay the foundation for children
composing and reading music, vs. teaching adults or even children how to
improvise.
started to study music when I was 9 years old (old
by some standards), taking formal lessons on the flute, moving to sax and guitar
at 12 (with classical guitar lessons for several years), and then switched to
guitar only at age 16. And never once was I ever asked by an instructor to
transcribe a piece of music I heard. I read tons of music, sheets and sheets of
everything concert and jazz and music, to classical, but never
transcribed. No one taught me how to improvise, and my parents didn't
really improvise musically either. I believe it was innate and just a
matter of having the right experiences to bring out that ability in me.
Transcription would have stiffled it, likely. For me, it is too formal and
restrictive to teach the freedom of improvisation. I just
started doing it at an early age, even before I started formally
training on an instrument. Again, I am just referring to a
sub-set of learners her, not all. One point that comes to my mind on
why the analogy has some drawbacks is that that unlike like human
language, with music a child or adult is not necessarly
"required" to notate music to play music. I know a jazz guitarist here
in Boise who is really amazing, I mean like Joe Pass/George Benson amazing, and
he can't read or write music. He can read chord sheets, and that's it. He gets
just as many gigs as any other jazz musician in town, and if the gig requires
learning a piece of music, he learns it by ear rather than learning it from the
written page. So, with music, it appears that one can get by just fine in many
contexts without having to read or write music; but with human language, we
have made it rather difficult for a person to get by in society without
writing. Though I imagine there might be musical contexts where it is
impossible to get by without reading music, like classical, session work, etc.
But if we're talking strictly about learning to improvise, then the analogy is
less relevant generally, and more personal.
So, to summarize my point. I believe and agree
that transcription can be useful for teaching children or adults how to
play/read/write music or improvise, but not for all children or adults -
because I have seen clear examples of where this approach was a detriment to the
learner's experience, not an enhancement. Works for some, doesn't for
others.
Kris
----- Original Message -----
the
reason transcription is brought up so often is that it similar to the way we
learn how to read and write. the way children acquire language works through a
process of sound before symbol.
child imitates parents (babble,
nonsense words)
child mimics specific words and attaches meaning in order
to communicate (bottle, up, down...)
child learns to associate the sounds
of words with the pictures
child learns to associate the the sounds of
words to the symbols
after much trial and error a child is able to form
sentences (aurally, but not orally)
eventually they learn how to notate
what they have been saying
we acquire our musical language this way
also. writing music down isn't necessary to compose a piece, but it does make
it easier over time to categorize many of the aural musical ideas we have in
our ears in to paper. there is nothing wrong with skipping the final process
of notating your transcriptions, and sometimes knowing which sections to
transcribe can save much time, and i think it is the final step to developing
a sophisticated understanding of any musical aesthetic.
cheers,
paul
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Daryl Shawn < highhorse@mhorse.com> wrote:
Interesting
debate, for sure, especially as transcription is a widely used tool. I'll
repeat my belief that transcription does improve ear training. However, I'm
not talking about necessarily notating it - I should have made that
distinction; my definition of transcription means listening to music and
transferring it to one's own instrument. Notation on paper is a laborious
step that doesn't directly address the ear training that I think is the main
benefit. The hour it'd take to notate a tune may be better spent learning to
recognize quickly what's going on in five or six other tunes.
I'll
notate difficult rhythms sometimes to know precisely what is going on.
Easier for me to hear a minor sixth chord than a group of seven at high
tempo.
I agree that all kinds of ways of ear training are possible,
and I do not think transcription has to necessarily be part of that. I
literally refused to do it at school (being focused on building an
encyclopedia of licks), it's only since then that I've done it, somewhat
informally, and believe I'm seeing some benefit.
I hate "licks". Even
the word. Don't get me started on avoid notes.. :-D
Daryl Shawn www.swanwelder.comwww.chinapaintingmusic.com
-----
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
--
http://twitter.com/becausetheydead
|