SNIP
> >
> >It's the kind of wives tail that is repreated endlessly until people
> >believe it's a fact.
>
> ...Besides being an ugly sexist cliche, this totally discounts the
> experience of many people who studied with LT and Connie, et. al. Again,
> your refused to check out the records I mentioned. But i suspect that you
> are so close minded, that it wouldn't make any difference.
>
Whether or not its an "ugly sexist cliche" is irrelevant to this
discussion. Demanding we consult your records seems to me a bit odd; We
have to go find and buy these, just to check a method of transcription
that some have advocated, but that clearly is not the only method.
It concerns me that, while Reed uses some pretty sharp language
("ridiculous", for example) and really attacks the method Richard
advocates, I find Richard repeatedly making personal attacks. Calling
people sexist simply doesn't relate to this debate.
> anyone wishing to discuss this or any other jazz related matter is invited
> to contact me directly. i don't know how much we can get to by e-mail [in
> person is the ideal, of course], but I'm wilin to try.
>
> It's too bad that Reed can't address what I say directly. But I'm not out
> to 'change his mind'; this scene can be done and has been done for decades.
>
Again, this seems odd to me. Why can't Richard just go on and talk
substantively about the details and just drop the attacks. I don't see
why we have to go offline for the actual content.
> Ask Lee Konitz...
Appeals to celebrity or authority are not really relevant. Almost any
point of view can be buttressed by appeal to a famous person or great
player. That doesn't really support anything.
[Second message content]
>
>
> ...see, this is a 'version', as you said, a point on the graph, but not the
> pure thing. without a teacher who is really into the scene, it is difficult
> for a person to really focus on it in a pure way or to allow the time it
> may take to happen...
>
Now here is an interesting point. Richard frequently supports a point by
telling us we need a great teacher, or need to consult him personally. I
sure wish I had a great teacher, but in Wilmore Kentucky there jest
ain't none.
But, I can use Reed's method of transcription without a great teacher.
Without spending any money. As I listen note for note, striving to get
the pitch, the time, the phrasing notated correctly, I suddenly realize
that I haven't been hearing or singing very accurately. Inner filters
and habits of hearing and singing, not to mention playing, have kept me
from hearing it all. What I thought was a simple slide on the guitar
turns out, slowed down and notated scrupulously, a very delicate,
layered phrase.
I just don't have a great teacher, nor the money to spend on it; but I
have some patience, which is free. Also, I haven't got a great memory.
But playing a phrase back several times, stepping through it a note at
the time, then translating that into notation, seats it into my memory.
I get an integration of how it sounded on the recording, how it looks on
the notation, and how I now play it.
Whenever I can learn without spending more money or having to find a zen
master, I get pretty happy.
>
> ...First, this was Tristano's innovation; not mine. Secondly, it's
> impossible to know what it is like without ginving it a chance in its real,
> pure way.
>
Again, a limit on the method Richard is advocating seems to be that
nobody does it right. The requirement of "purity" almost sounds
religious. On the other hand, just plugging along note for note, writing
it down, checking and double checking, playing over it, letting others
try it--it just doesn't seem such a fragile,
corruption-and-misunderstanding prone approach. I like my tools to be
rugged, to work even when I don't "do it exactly right." Reed's approach
works for me even though (GASP!) I transcribe on the guitar, my
instrument, and not a pitch pipe. I want to try the pitch pipe because
its small and I can transcribe anywhere I have my tape player and pitch
pipe. But even this "violation" of the method hasn't stopped me from
transcribing.
> I would say it like this: The note-to-note transcrip method focuses on a
> brain-analytical approach. The solo does not become a part of you in the
> way the LT's scene allows the solo to become a part of the artist, and
> allows the artist to really get past the notes, to the feeling there...
>
I have to disagree. Listening to a single measure repeatedly, then
slowed down, and carefully recording it, taking care to notate not what
I think it is, but what it actually seems to be, goes a long way to make
it soak in. Human feelings may be accessed and activated in many ways.
The analytical is not opposed to the appreciative. You have TWO brain
hemispheres, connected by the greatest network on earth. You can do
both.
> Looking at a menu or analyzing water will not quench your thirst, so to speak...
>
This isn't what notation is. Notation is a process of presenting a
visual metaphor for the music.
It seems to me that the whole debate actually turns on the value of
notation. Reed insists on it, without denying that singing the solo
could help as well. Richard insists on the singing and learning by
heart, but seems reserved about the notation for some reason.
I think that, by listening and singing, etc. I can augment Reed's method
if I want to. Richard seems concerned to get us into a "scene" that
almost sounds cultic at points-necessity of a guru, purity of approach,
etc.
Maybe we ordinary people who just love music should ponder whether we
will get and give more pleasure in music by getting to work
transcribing, learning, and passing on the good things that we learn. We
can only learn feeling by getting up and playing what's in our hearts
and ears. Transcription is about putting some good things in there to
say.
Back to my first efforts on this front-the most fun I've had in music
for a long time.
Lawson Stone