Hey guys, thanks for all the feedback on my transcription post. Here’s my response to the points brought up in the comments.
I think you all understood my main point: transcribing is only a bad deal because it tends to make us think that the notes on the page are the main thing we need to understand in order to play like the pros. It seems like all of you are on board with me there, so if we can keep in mind that there is more to learning this instrument than simply writing down what others have played, then everything will be fine.
In other words, I agree with all of the comments regarding the helpful aspects of transcription – as long as one constantly keeps in mind that music is about FEELING and EMOTIONAL IMPACT. This is something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately. The essence, the bedrock foundation of music is that it moves people. Music has a tangible and physical impact on listeners, and the experience is profoundly emotional at the same time. The intellectual aspect of music (the part where you analyze and map out what someone is playing) really has nothing to do with music itself. It is merely a way to understand the physical and emotional experience that music brings. Now, of course understanding what you’re experiencing can be helpful in many ways, but I don’t think it changes the experience itself. That’s why critics, professionals, and “music civilians” alike will all respond similarly to a powerful piece of music.
This is obviously all just a theory of mine, based on observations… and I haven’t completely thought it through yet. But it’s really helping me to remember the reason why I do what I do. At the end of the day, when all the exercises/listening/evaluation/analysis/criticism is said and done, I really just want music to MOVE me, and moving others is what I want the music I make to accomplish.
So again, this is where I part ways with the transcription junkies. I almost never find the experience of music to be enhanced by writing out what I’ve heard. Sometimes transcription will help me replicate what I’ve heard, but most of the time it just takes my mind off the real issue by forcing me to focus on the “what just happened” question instead of the “how did that make me feel” question. That might sound overly artsy, but it’s the best explanation I can come up with for what I’ve been learning lately.
The Steve Goold Blog 
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 26, 2010 at 10:51 am
saba
I had to do a project for a class called Psychology and Music. I chose to examine the effect of subtle changes in rhythm on perception. I programmed a cowbell pattern into a drum machine and quantized it. Then I changed the timing of each hit so that some hits were a little ahead of the beat and some were behind. I ended up with about 10 examples of the same beat that sounded noticeably different. That is, if you transcribed all 10 versions, all of the transcriptions would be identical, even though they didn’t sound identical.
What gave me this idea was listening to two tracks by The Roots. “Here I Come” and “Rolling With Heat” are have two very different drum beats. They differ in tempo, production (room size, mics used, drum tuning, etc) and a variety of other factors. One similarity, however, is that the snare drum rhythm is exactly the same. Sure, in one example the strikes are buzzed and in another they’re just straight hits, but the snare drum rhythms on both songs would be transcribed exactly the same… yet they sound quite different, just like my examples on a drum machine.
I had 18 subjects listen to the cowbell beats I made (9 musicians, 9 non-musicians) and 17 of them agreed that they could hear a difference between the beats I had them listen to. The musicians had an easier time explaining why they thought they were different, but nobody could actually tell me HOW they were different. Some musicians said “those two notes are rushed” or “this sounds lazy/stiff/laid back/etc”, but nobody could tell me exactly which notes I’d manipulated or how I’d done it. In fact, when I was adjusting the timing of the beats, I lost track of what I was doing a few times and had to visually examine them to figure out how I’d changed them.
My point was to show that although something can be transcribed, that’s not always exactly how it’s played. A transcription is a rough representation. You can program a computer to play a Herbie Hancock tune but it doesn’t sound like Herbie Hancock playing, right? Even if you program in dynamics and stuff.
My experiment backed up my hypothesis but I was still a little bummed out. If there are a thousand different ways to play a written beat, then how do you know when to play it one way as opposed to another? How did Quest know to play the snare like THIS on Rolling with Heat and like THAT on Here I Come? My vibraphone playing friend tells me that this is where the oral tradition of music comes in. You can read and write about music for days but you’ll always be missing out on what you learn from playing with and watching and talking to other musicians.
Whew, what a mouthful. Hope this all makes sense… I’m writing this while sitting in class and trying to pretend I’m listening.
May 27, 2010 at 12:29 am
jeff
Hey Steve…thanks for the thought-provoking topic. In short… if you don’t find a use for it, that is cool. But, I will say that I don’t know anyone that spends time transcribing that would mistake it as anything more than ‘studying’ a player, piece of music, or style.
Transcription can be many things, but apparently you know people that assume it is “the notes on the page are the main thing we need to understand in order to play like the pros.”
I can say I have never met anyone that has thought that. I have certainly never taught that. So… what a wake up call for those people to think that writing it down is the ‘gold at the end of the rainbow’, because it certainly isn’t.
Not to beat a dead horse, but transcribing is only useful if one uses it as a ‘window’ into the moment.. and then working on the parts, and finally playing along with the track to attempt and replicate the ‘feel’ that is creating the ‘feelings & emotions”.
It is a tool…plain and simple. One either finds a use for it or not. I have to say that it isn’t an enemy of feeling and emotional impact. Music, and the feelings that abound by listening to it are a result of countless things. If, however, by studying through transcription this ‘cheapens’ the experience, I guess you shouldn’t do it.
Matt Chamberlain transcribed tons while at NTSU, as do SO MANY great drummers/musicians. I don’t think any of them assumed they would play ‘like the pros’ by doing so.
We are a (musical) product of our experiences. We learn by all the tools around us… formal and causal ‘lessons’ (mentors), method books, listening, playing (good and poorly), videos/youtube/live concerts and tons more.
Transcribing to me fits between method books and playing (along with the radio). It is intentional practice that strengthens one’s ear, and increases vocabulary, and can demystify some things. It is a ‘macro’ view of whatever is being studied.…Nothing more, nothing less.
In closing, I don’t think anyone would disagree with “there is more to learning an instrument than simply writing down what others have played.” I will add, “transcription is more than simply writing something down.”