I guess I have tried both methods in the past and to me they are both quiet
valid because they focus on different things.
When I first started playing guitar I used a version of Richards method. I
repeatedly listened to and played along with solos of artists I liked such
as Clapton, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Hendrix, Buddy Guy, until I could duplicate
what they where doing. But I can't remember ever trying to right it out.
Primarily this is because to much of what they where playing would have been
lost. You can't adequatly notate the attack that someone uses on a note or
the feel of the tremelo. How do you write down the way Miles goes vu? When I
am playing some one elses solo I try to hear them playing it in my head.
Good interpretation is vital to good performance. There is a vast difference
between what you would hear from myself and from say John Williams although
we could have the same piece of paper in front of us. The difference between
a person reading Shakespear aloud and a trained Shakspearian actor reciting.
Now I more often follow something similar to Reeds method as well. Working
through note by note is a much more effective way of seeing and
understanding the musical idea. It is far easier to look at where notes are
placed in relation to their suroundings. Where they are in the bar, where
they fit harmonicly, their context in the melody etc.
To me Reeds method focuses on understanding a musical idea. Richards method
focuses on understanding the interpretation of a musical idea by a musician.
Both are important.
P.S. I find the following addition to Reeds method of transcription realy
usefull but it may not have been noticed in the flurry.
If a piece is particularly complex rythemicaly, you might bar off the entire
solo, transcribe the first beat in each measure, then beat 3 later filling
in the missing notes.
Data is not information,
Information is not knowlegde,
Knowledge is not wisdom. Anon.