What I learn from transcribing solos...Lick Vs Language

[cire113]

I know alot of people transcribe solo's and learn alot of "licks" but strangely i learn the opposite.. i learn language instead of licks...

Usually when i transcribe a solo the things i learn are new/different ways of fingering a chord or phrase.. then i assimilate it into my vocabulary and come up with my own stuff..

Does this make sense does somebody know what i mean?

Its like i figured out you can play XXX notes with this fingering and i didnt know that before transcribing and now i have more vocabulary...

[Russell L]

I guess I know sorta what you mean. When writing a book for a band a few years ago seems I remember learning a variety of things from sitting and thinking about fingering as I put the notes on paper. I didn't put fingering on the sheets, though, but I sure had a lot of thoughts while writing it all. Sometimes I remember sitting back for a minute to emulate playing a line, using my right arm as a fingerboard. Much can be learned while transcribing, just as much can be learned from just listening and picking out lines. Some things come to mind like revelations, and other things are just things you just haven't thought of until you were transcribing.

Interesting topic.

[Mark Wilson]

I dunno...
That's how I've always learned stuff.
Why would I want to sound like the people i'm lifting?
I'm me.

[mstott25]

Originally Posted by cire113

I know alot of people transcribe solo's and learn alot of "licks" but strangely i learn the opposite.. i learn language instead of licks...

I don't think there's such thing as "language vs licks". Transcribing is just as valuable to building a vocabulary as anything else. When I studied another language and then went to a country that spoke that language I can't tell you how many times I learned a new phrase or heard something that I never would have come up with on my own. Same alphabet, same vocabulary, no way I would have figured it out without hearing somebody else say it first. I'm not saying don't study the patterns and exercises and theory on your own at all, that's integral to anybody's growth, but just because you've found success doing that doesn't in any way undermine the value of transcribing IMO.

It's the same thing with music, you are never going to come up with all of the lines Charlie Parker used on your own, you just won't - given an entire lifetime and all the same notes. You can hear his phrases, incorporate them into your own playing and then notice that guys like Sonny Stitt, Lou Donaldson, Cannonball Adderley and many others are also using the same language and phrasing. Then you're increasing your vocabulary, sharpening your ear and participating in a conversation that's been going on longer than you've been alive.

Originally Posted by Mark Wilson

I dunno...
That's how I've always learned stuff.
Why would I want to sound like the people i'm lifting?
I'm me.

Well...you're still going to be YOU! You will sound like you no matter what, but you're getting yourself familiar with the vocabulary of music that has been handed down by others for ages. You use the same words as everybody else on this forum but you're still putting it in your context and your style, I don't think learning phrases from a master is going to rob you of your identity.

If you're transcribing than you're able to hear something and play it back on your instrument; the more you practice that the more you'll be able to play any ideas that come into your head back on your instrument.

[Groove Master]

Originally Posted by cire113

I know alot of people transcribe solo's and learn alot of "licks" but strangely i learn the opposite.. i learn language instead of licks...

Usually when i transcribe a solo the things i learn are new/different ways of fingering a chord or phrase.. then i assimilate it into my vocabulary and come up with my own stuff..

Does this make sense does somebody know what i mean?

Its like i figured out you can play XXX notes with this fingering and i didnt know that before transcribing and now i have more vocabulary...

+1

I agree because a lot of time when people transcribe stuff, they just don't know what to do with it afterwards. Too often people are just playing licks. It's like if someone in a conversation would only tell what he heard in the news on the radio by using the same words, the same accents, the same tone as the news spokeman. It wouldn't be real and personal. This is why I believe in learning the language instead of just licks. When you transcribe something, you have to make it your own after, to get something original out of it.

[mstott25]

Originally Posted by Groove Master

+1

I agree because a lot of time when people transcribe stuff, they just don't know what to do with it afterwards. Too often people are just playing licks. It's like if someone in a conversation would only tell what he heard in the news on the radio by using the same words, the same accents, the same tone as the news spokeman. It wouldn't be real and personal. This is why I believe in learning the language instead of just licks. When you transcribe something, you have to make it your own after, to get something original out of it.

But everybody does sit around and talk about what they heard on the news/radio/internet that day precisely because they grasped the content. They're able to interact, discuss, debate and have an opinion because the ideas are being communicated in a language they are fluent in.

If you're able to hear Chris Potter blow over All the Things you Are and retain that information and repeat key phrases and quote content from that performance on your own instrument, than you are operating on the same level musically as you do linguistically.

If you cannot repeat a musical idea that you hear back on your instrument, then there are huge gaps in your "language". I'm pretty sure you can repeat anything back from the newcaster you want OR you can choose to put it in your own words. You can't do either if you don't understand what he's saying.

The very best practice for training your ear to recognize musical ideas is transcribing.

You can practice any scale/interval study/sequence/mode you want on your own, but if you can't recognize that in the solo someone just took or in what your piano player is doing...what good is it?

[Groove Master]

Originally Posted by mstott25

But everybody does sit around and talk about what they heard on the news/radio/internet that day precisely because they grasped the content. They're able to interact, discuss, debate and have an opinion because the ideas are being communicated in a language they are fluent in.

If you're able to hear Chris Potter blow over All the Things you Are and retain that information and repeat key phrases and quote content from that performance on your own instrument, than you are operating on the same level musically as you do linguistically.

If you cannot repeat a musical idea that you hear back on your instrument, then there are huge gaps in your "language". I'm pretty sure you can repeat anything back from the newcaster you want OR you can choose to put it in your own words. You can't do either if you don't understand what he's saying.

The very best practice for training your ear to recognize musical ideas is transcribing.

You can practice any scale/interval study/sequence/mode you want on your own, but if you can't recognize that in the solo someone just took or in what your piano player is doing...what good is it?

I agree with you but I think you missed the part where I mention that you do repeat "as is" what you heard on the news which I refer to people who play back exactly what they have transcribe without any analysis and understanding of the material. That was the point I wanted to make

[mstott25]

Originally Posted by Groove Master

I agree with you but I think you missed the part where I mention that you do repeat "as is" what you heard on the news which I refer to people who play back exactly what they have transcribe without any analysis and understanding of the material. That was the point I wanted to make

No I didn't miss that.
I just think that's a naive view of transcription. I was trying to stress the similarities between your analogy and the actual process rather than draw attention to the straw-man example you presented.

[Groove Master]

Originally Posted by mstott25

No I didn't miss that.
I just think that's a naive view of transcription. I was trying to stress the similarities between your analogy and the actual process rather than draw attention to the straw-man example you presented.

I'm not say it is a naive view of transcription but the fact that a lot of musicians don't take the exercice far enough after they are done with a transcript. There is a lot of stuff to analyse afterwards regarding the melodic content,the harmonic content,the rhythm content,the phrasing, dynamics, build-up etc..

Exerpts from those transcripts should be part of a new routine and bring new exercices and material to your vocabulary instead of just playing licks they remember to play on that specific tune or chord.

[Hoover]

Originally Posted by Russell L

I guess I know sorta what you mean.

LOL! Yeah, ^^^this.

I do find that if I transcribe a solo or a complex passage and then practice the crap out of it on my bass, eventually I wind up internallizing it to the point where I can

...play someone else's solo or complex passage! Wait, what's the point of that? I mean, yeah, it's a nice dexterity exercise, learning new ways to move my fingers and/or navigate the neck, but it doesn't really help me from a musical perpective.

Whereas if I transcribe a solo or a complex passage and then study what's going on in that transcription -- identifying the relationships in the material, figuring out why it works and what makes it compelling from an architectural (or emotional) perspective -- then I can apply those concepts to my own playing. And that's how I grow as a musician.

So, presuming the first instance is "learning licks" and the second instance is "learning language" then yeah, I know what you mean. Sorta.

[Snarf]

Originally Posted by cire113

I know alot of people transcribe solo's and learn alot of "licks" but strangely i learn the opposite.. i learn language instead of licks...

Usually when i transcribe a solo the things i learn are new/different ways of fingering a chord or phrase.. then i assimilate it into my vocabulary and come up with my own stuff..

Does this make sense does somebody know what i mean?

Its like i figured out you can play XXX notes with this fingering and i didnt know that before transcribing and now i have more vocabulary...

This is exactly what you should be getting out of transcribing. Playing solos verbatim is good practice, but the key to making transcribing an effective learning tool is to identify how the transcribe-ee thinks about and navigates through chord changes, rather than replaying transcriptions over and over again in their own solos.