> At 02:01 PM 5/25/97 -0800, you wrote:
> >I'm not trying to prove you wrong, Reed, about either the value of
> >transcription or the evils of chord/scale zealotry. I thought maybe th=
e
> >experience I described suggested there was a middle ground that says
> >there is value in learning chord/scale relationships even if applying
> >them chord by chord isn't the road to good melodic improvisation.
> >>
> Well you shouldnt believe anything I say anyway. You need to
> question everything and come to your own conclusions. It's too
> scary to think of someone wasting their musical life by blindly
> believing anyone elses dogma.
> =
> I do think that you should transcribe and answer questions
> for yourself about what people are doing.
> =
The fine thing about transcribing is you finally get away from this or
that persons theoretical approach. You are just working directly on the
music for yourself. You might come up with a theoretical system for
codifying your insights for your own playing, your own way of thinking
about soloing, but the real benefit isn't the system, it's the direct
exposure to the music. Someone else may develop a different system for
organizing what they've learned in transcription, and you can debate the
systems, but transcribing and composing seem to be things that nobody
disputes as keys to great musicianship. If by transcribing you include
"close imitation" then even those who apparently never "transcribed"
still learned from imitating.
BTW I found in Ross Russell's biography of Charlie Parker a paragraph
describing how Bird would adjust the set screw on a record player to
SLOW DOWN recordings by Lester Young so he could learn them note for
note. At the same time, pianist Carrie Powell and guitarist Eferge Ware
were tutoring him in harmony.This was during a summer job in 1937 at
Lake Taneycomo in the Ozarks. The story is in chapter 7 of "Bird Lives."
> The big problem I have with chord scales is that I see no evidence
> whatsoever that the great players were doing that. This makes we wonder=
> where it came from.
> =
It probably came from early players' solos often hanging around chord
tones, and many descriptions of bebop tend to stress improvising on the
"upper intervals" of chords. The link between harmony and melody has to
be thought through, and chord-scale approaches seem to be one "after the
fact" explanation. =
I think Reed has successfully shown us many times that this explanation
does not really serve well in explaining how great players actually
create their music. It is a "post mortem" type of thing. But we all hope
in analysis that somehow by studying the final form we can recreate the
creative process. Unfortunately, there are many types of analyses that
could conceivably explain a given work of art. That they coherently
describe or explain it doesn't make them good vehicles for reproducing
that art. I think that's the trap with chord-scale as a comprehensive
theory of improvisation. A tool that can provide a pretty satisfying
"explanation" of a line already played work as a creative approach.
Description and Prescription are not always correlative. =
> When I was a kid I assumed that my teachers were teaching me things tha=
t
> they learned from their teachers (presumably great players). I didnt re=
alize
> that I was being taught things developed by educators.
> =
> My basic insights regarding what people are doing are worth
> considerring.
> =
[Rest omitted for space]
-- =
//////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Lawson G. Stone=97Asbury Theological Seminary=97Wilmore, KY 40390
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////////////////////////
"You know, a long time ago, being crazy meant something. Nowadays,
everybody's crazy." Charles Manson