What is the most beneficial aspect of trascribing. Is it the act of
listening closely and learning something note for note, or is the
analysis of the same information to understand "how" it was done.
Perhaps the two are inseperable.
I have a difficult time improvising (I emphisise improvising versus
composing) a solo on changes that are new to me using an overly
analytical approach. Yes I understand and can play the relevant
chord/scales, but the outcome always sound too technical for my ears
(not melodic enough). As my teacher always says it only takes more
practice ... but ...
When I simply try and focus on playing the chord tones and treat all
other notes as "connectors" to those chord tones the solo comes alot
easier and sounds more pleasing to me. This seems to work well in both
tunes that have a tonal center and those without one. To make the solo
sound more "outside" I employ the same technique but use substitute
chords.
All this is to say that I don't feel any tangible benefit from
"analysing" someones solos. I have done it several time know (again
maybe it just takes more time) but am having trouble making the
connection to how I can use those "concepts" in my own solos.
I believe you learn specific applications to grasp the concept, and
once you have the concept you can improvise using it (i.e. generate
infinite applications of the concept). Why aren't the concepts used by
accomplished players taught as such with specific applications to
reinforce them. Maybe that is what I am searching for.
Mike