>I can teach someone to transcribe solos , even a beginner,
>but the harmonic/voicing aspects of things take time and experience
>more like I explained.
>
>When I transcribe piano/guitar voicings, it's more because I already
>play those voicings myself or something very close. If it's something
>very close, I can just modify what I play using trial and error until
>I find a match.
>
>For chord progressions, I know alot of tunes and reharmonization ideas
>so I can figure out pretty quickly what is going on usually , but not always.
> I can be fooled if I don't spend alot of time
>and there is something tricky going on that I havent transcribed before.
I would like to add my humble opinion to this (I hope I am not repeating the
above):
As a sax player, I have had problems soloing by ear, but I am right at home
with a chord chart. (If everybody is playing from it.) To fix this problem,
I found a bar in Sunnyvale where the player uses a 'band in the box' gadget
and plays basic chords on his guitar to accompany himself. The point is
from listening to a tape of that (or any popular song on the radio), I can
work out the chord names that are happening. A player doesn't need to
know the exact voicing to fit in with the music. Since there are 12 keys
and ~6 basic kinds of chords, one can get the info fairly easily after getting
oriented. Since I tried this transcribing method, I can play dixieland with
ease, and follow this player ~80% of the time. One thing I found is that
the chord progressions have a characteristic sound which can be recognized
like a word or an idea. I don't have perfect pitch, so a keyboard helps me
get oriented.
One thing Reed always writes is that jazz is not information intensive. It
starts with some basic stuff and builds from there. I believe that the task
of transcribing basic harmony is just another example.
jules