Originally Posted by
rpjazzguitar
Most of the great players I know have copied solos. Some write them down. Some do it regularly.
Most have, but not all. I know some terrific players who will admit that they don't transcribe much, if at all, and they don't practice with a metronome (one recommends it to others, but doesn't do it himself).
But, to make it clear, most great players I know have transcribed a lot and are good at it.
I've never enjoyed transcription, mostly because I'm not good at it. The usual advice is, do more of it, and you'll get better. That might require self-discipline <g>.
When I try I often get stuck on trying to figure out an unusual sounding chord in a recording that kind of murky and it can be frustrating. Melody is much easier. Hear a few notes, sing them and then find them on the guitar.
I think the conventional wisdom is that there's no advantage to not-transcribing. It seems to me that not-transcribing just might force a player to find his own vocabulary, which could contribute to the development of an individual style. The conventional wisdom differs - most suggest that transcribing eventually leads to an individual style, presumably with more breadth melodically and harmonically.
I also wonder if copying solos with one's voice and not the guitar would work. For that matter, why not imitate Frank Sinatra's or Nat Cole's or Tony Bennett's phrasing by singing along?
My copying is limited to fragments that catch my ear. I've read through transcriptions done by others more than I've transcribed myself -- by a wide margin. But, neither transcribing myself nor reading transcriptions is likely to get something new into my playing. Rather, for some reason, it has been more effective when I'm sitting next to a player who does something ear-catching and I can see how he did it. For some reason, that stuff is much more likely to stick. Just about every lick I use (both of them) came to me that way.
Building a new rig. All that's left is an FRFR...
Yesterday, 06:02 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos