Transcribing Tips

Ive been trying to get into more transcribing lately.... i have very little experience doing this and my ear is horrible.

Ive transcribed Tom Sawyer, Dont take me Alive, the head part of I'm Tweaked, the St, Thomas Drum solo by max and just now the Seven steps to heaven solo by Tony.

I dont think any of these are 100% accurate.

But when I was transcribing David Garibaldi, I realized that It was pretty much impossible to hear what was going on on the snare... also had the same problem trying to transcribe some elvin comping ideas.

Is there anything I can do to help myself hear these notes better?

I tried fussing around with the EQ and stuff on I tunes and that helped articulate the ride a bit but not so much on the snare...

Are phones better or are speakers better? that kind of stuff and any other tips that could help me transcribe stuff more accurately.

Thanks for the help in advance.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 21, 2005 03:44 AM: Message edited by: GoMan ]</font>

I can't imagine why someone would spend all the time it takes to do that. What benefit do you get out of it?

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 21, 2005 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Henry II ]</font>

if the sound quality is muddled there's not much you can do but try eqing, maybe a multiband compressor in a daw.

for really crazy stuff that's too fast for me to get i like to use a programs like recycle, or acid to create hitpoints.

ie [img]tongue.gif[/img] utting markers on the audio wave that allow time alteration without pitch alterations.

then slow it down to where i can get it.

windows media can do it a bit but it's recks the integrity of the tune a bit.

something like recycle or acid allows you to slow down the speed but retain the proper pitch properties


chris perra

Ya eq is pretty much all you can do for hard to hear things. For ghost notes on the snare, its almost a feeling thing, and even though you don't know exactly where they are, if you listen to it enough and try to play like that, you'll be getting it. I prefer headphones cause you can hear things a little better, although they may not be as ear-friendly if you're doing it for long periods of time. Listen to the thing that you want to transcribe many, many times. And if you can't get the exact rhythm, just get as close as you can to the original feel.

I think transcribing (as in writing it out, not transcribing as in listening and then repeating it on the kit) is great when you FEEL LIKE doing it. As for the other type of transcribing (playing it, not writing it), i like to transcribe just from listening and then actually working it out on the drums, depending on how hard it is, sometimes i go as slow as one measure at a time. When it comes to Tony on Seven Steps, that solo didn't take me too long; however, when it comes to something like a Roy Haynes solo, some of those take me a little longer because i am just not used to his phrasing and how he uses the kit. Another example is Brian Blade, he has nice linear melodies going on... Tain, on the other hand, he sounds like a freight train and i have a hard time hearing what the hell is going on. However, the more you do it, the better you get. I have seen people who can sit down and just do it like nothing... however, they have been doing it a long time.

When it comes to writing things out, i think that is great too, however, maybe not too functional if you just sit there and transcribe all day. I do it when i NEED to for a gig, and other times, sometimes i do it just to stay sharp.

When it comes to transcribing, a good way to start out is to find something that is already transcribed and then transcribe the piece yourself. Then cross-check how you did against the transcription (hopefully it will be a reliable one).

As far as slowing things down, i am going to go against what Chris Perra said and i am going to suggest NOT slowing it down when you are practicing your transcribing skills. Now, if you need to transcribe something for a gig (as opposed to doing it for practice) then slowing it down works, go with whatever works. However, if you are practicing getting your ear together, i would work on trying to get it right without slowing it down. Train your ear to hear things as they are, at whatever speed they may be. The faster and more complex something is, well, then you'll just have to hear it in smaller chunks. A great tool for that is Sound Forge, you can loop sections seamlessly. Now, that being said, Sound Forge can also slow things down without changing the pitch. I would try my best to listen and work everything out at regular speed, THEN if you just can't get it, sure, bump it down a few clicks on the tempo. Just don't become reliant on slowing things down to a comfortable speed, because you need to get used to hearing a variety of speeds... that is how real music happens.

The goal isn't to have a proper transcription, the goal is to have a well-trained ear that gives you the ability to produce a proper transcription. [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

Good Luck!

P.S. One thing i forgot to mention... when doing it, it helps to sing the hell out of what you are transcribing. Hear it and then sing it with the music on pause... then listen to it while you are singing to it... check yourself like that. It makes it easier because the voice is the most accurate instrument we possess because it gets the most use. Once you own it by singing it, you have it there to slow down all you like while you write everything out [img]wink.gif[/img]

Thanks for the response guys...some great advice going on here.

to Henry II

did you mean why would anyone spend so much time on transcribing stuff?

Well heres my deal.

I have really lame vocabulary when it comes to music. I can play rock OK, but my jazz and funk is pretty poor. I want to take in other players phrasings and make it my own.

So this is what I will try to do. I will try to transcribe several hours a week a) to work on listening skills b) to work on writing and maybe thatll help my reading c)use it as a coordination excersize by learning the material (maybe this will help a little with my reading) d)increase vocab and versitility....hopefully.

So for me it just seems like a multiple function excersize. Besides, working outa syncopationcan get a little stale for me cuz its kinda fake..i rather practice things that work in real life playing. i am alsoworking on transcribing how players play the heads of jazz tunes and some comping ideas.

Plust its kinda fun for me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by matricks:
As for the other type of transcribing (playing it, not writing it)

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There is no other type of transcribing. If you're not 'writing' it down, you're not transcribing (the word scribing means writing). If you are listening and then trying to repeat it by playing it, I would probably call that 'lifting'.

Transcribing is a good exercise for ear training and also a good way to catalog your favourite ideas.

HenryII - Wow! Hopefully, I misunderstood what you're meaning.

GoMan - I've transcribed for several magazines, and it helps to vary what you listen to. Cheap speakers, studio monitors, car stereo and phones all have different frequency curves and vary in accuracy. Listening on two different sources can make a big difference in you final result. Listening on more is better.

The whole point of transcribing is accuracy. There are many things that can make that difficult. If you want your transcription to be accurate, listening at different speeds can help insure that - assuming you have the software or a CD player that allows it or want to invest in it. If Chris Perra advised against that, I think he is just plain wrong. It's useful to be able to figure out patterns real time, and some things, for example, AC/DC are easy to figure out. But I would avoid that at all costs if the piece I was writing out was for publication.

If you just want to learn other drummer's techniques and grooves, why not buy their books and DVD's? That's the best way to know exactly what a guy played. Working 47 ways through Syncopation gets you really good at playing those specific patterns. But there are countless approaches, many more advance than are encompassed within that book. There are hundreds of books, that focus on Funk, Jazz and other styles.

I've made mistakes too. Everyone does. I have even found errors in artists own books in the transcriptions, and have had the actual artist tell me they played something different when collaborating with them, than what was actually recorded. They tend to tell you either what they meant to play (or a more accurate version of the pattern). Good luck with it, it's a worthwhile way to improve your listening skills, understanding of proper notation, and musical vocabulary.

Brad

Quote:

---

There is no other type of transcribing. If you're not 'writing' it down, you're not transcribing (the word scribing means writing). If you are listening and then trying to repeat it by playing it, I would probably call that 'lifting'.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sure, the webster's dictionary definition of transcribing is to write, HOWEVER, you mean to tell me you've never heard of it used as in listening to music and then repeating it by playing it?! Probably about 80% of the time that i hear the term "transcribing" being used, it is used to mean reproducing what is on a recording by actually playing it. If you want to get down to the Latin roots of it, yes it does indeed mean writing... but everyone probably knows that. However, it is functionally used to describe "lifting" as you would say... every music teacher, professor, mentor, friend. etc., uses in that way... i'll be sure to let them know next time i see them that they are informed of the literal Latin root of the word.

However, it's an uphill battle since most people i've talked to use it to mean both. The less 'old school' you are, the more you probably use it to mean both.

for the record.


i belive in slowing things down. and use what i have to when i need it.

to me if things go by too fast and you don't understand it, you can't train your ear to get it no matter how much you try.

you have to slow it down, figure it out and then use that new knowledge in the future to recognize new things.

also i found that in the past the hardest stuff to figure out for me was quick sticking patterns that used some rudiments in unusual ways. because my rudiments at the time were not happening.

like doubles or accented ruffs or flams i couldn't recognize anything because i didn't have any internal vocabulary to work from. by slowing things down i had a starting point at least rythmically and could devise sticking patterns from it.

but just letting go by at mach 10 wouldn't do me any good even if i listened to 1000 times because i didn't understand the language. working on alot of rudimental sticking and foot patterns will help figure some stuff when transcribing.

the other thing that slowing things down will help with is figuring out the quarter note pulse and the subdivisions you have to write out.

alot of the tricky stuff intentionaly misleads the listener rythmically and makes life hell if it's too fast.

good luck

chris perra

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Henry II:
I can't imagine why someone would spend all the time it takes to do that. What benefit do you get out of it?

<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ August 21, 2005 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Henry II ]</font></font>

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Henry, I'm astounded by this comment... as for asking what benefit one would get out of it it, all I can say is if you have to ask then you're clearly missing the point. Maybe, just maybe GoMan wants to become a better player by transcribing in order to develop and train and develop his ear. Maybe he wants to work out what is going on in a piece or solo so he can work out stickings and how a drummer phrases or interprets a piece. Maybe he wants to take the time and trouble to work out a lick that he likes and can hear, but is not entirely sure what is going on just be listeniing. Maybe listening repeatedly to a piece just isn't enough and by taking down what is being played, he can really get into the intricacies of what is being played and why? Maybe he wants to develop his reading skills and his ability to notate drum charts?

Don't forget by transcribing, you are building up a library of material that can be revisited at as later date and played exactly as the drummer on the recording did. Unless you have astonishing memory and can recall any piece at will, having something written down is the only way to guarantee that you will play it note for note each time, no matter how long it has been since the last time you played it: Reading music is an aid to memory. Even if you can sucessfully work out a drum piece note for note just by listening, the chances are that in 5 years, you will have forgotten it. By transcribing you have a permenant record.

If you have taken the time to sit, rewind and repeatedly listen to a drum part in order to transribe it, this will make you a better musician and indeed reader as you are developing and honing numerous skills in terms of intense listening as you are putting every note under the microscope while reading and notating music.

You are also not just using your ears, but understanding and writing the language down. It's clear that you do not only speak English Henry, but as we can see here, are able to write it aswell, the same can be said for music and drumming.

These are the benefits Henry.

Hey Chris,

I didn't think that sounded like something you'd say.

Brad

Quote:

---

Originally posted by matricks:
you mean to tell me you've never heard of it used as in listening to music and then repeating it by playing it?!

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's what I am telling you. I have NEVER heard anyone describe playing something as 'transcribing'.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 22, 2005 02:54 PM: Message edited by: drumming sort of person ]</font>

The last thing I want to do is get in the middle of this (so, why am I?)....

But, if you are listening to something and playing what you have heard, you are doing nothing to advance your transcribing skills -- since you are not transcribing. You may well be advancing your ear training though if you can play what you hear.

Transcribing means to take music from the auditory realm and place it on paper so it can enter the intellectual realm for analysis.

That's all it is really. Anybody that uses it to mean anything else is misusing the term IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vdrummer:
HenryII - Wow! Hopefully, I misunderstood what you're meaning.

GoMan - I've transcribed for several magazines, and it helps to vary what you listen to. Cheap speakers, studio monitors, car stereo and phones all have different frequency curves and vary in accuracy. Listening on two different sources can make a big difference in you final result. Listening on more is better.

The whole point of transcribing is accuracy. There are many things that can make that difficult. If you want your transcription to be accurate, listening at different speeds can help insure that - assuming you have the software or a CD player that allows it or want to invest in it. If Chris Perra advised against that, I think he is just plain wrong. It's useful to be able to figure out patterns real time, and some things, for example, AC/DC are easy to figure out. But I would avoid that at all costs if the piece I was writing out was for publication.

If you just want to learn other drummer's techniques and grooves, why not buy their books and DVD's? That's the best way to know exactly what a guy played. Working 47 ways through Syncopation gets you really good at playing those specific patterns. But there are countless approaches, many more advance than are encompassed within that book. There are hundreds of books, that focus on Funk, Jazz and other styles.

I've made mistakes too. Everyone does. I have even found errors in artists own books in the transcriptions, and have had the actual artist tell me they played something different when collaborating with them, than what was actually recorded. They tend to tell you either what they meant to play (or a more accurate version of the pattern). Good luck with it, it's a worthwhile way to improve your listening skills, understanding of proper notation, and musical vocabulary.

Brad

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">VDrummer, If you're making a living selling transcriptions to magazines, I can understand why you do it. I've seen some interesting 'scrips in MD ie: Philly Joe, Max Roach. But, for someone who is just trying to be the best musician he can be, it doesn't seem like the most efficient use of time to me. Don't get me wrong, I've written out parts from records that I needed to know. My understanding is that GoMan is talking about transcribing entire songs. It just seems to me that any benefit of doing that is outweighed by the amount of time it takes away from what I think is more productive practice.

Hey, maybe I've been missing the boat on this one. What do you think it does for your playing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Henry II:
But, for someone who is just trying to be the best musician he can be, it doesn't seem like the most efficient use of time to me. What do you think it does for your playing.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You seem to be equating "best musician" exclusively with playing. This would seem to be a little short-sighted.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 22, 2005 06:11 PM: Message edited by: moosetication ]</font>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by moosetication:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Henry II:
But, for someone who is just trying to be the best musician he can be, it doesn't seem like the most efficient use of time to me. What do you think it does for your playing.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You seem to be equating "best musician" exclusively with playing. This would seem to be a little short-sighted.

<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ August 22, 2005 06:11 PM: Message edited by: moosetication ]</font></font></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, then expand my vision for me. What else besides playing the best that you are able, makes you the best musician you can be?

HenryII,

I don't know, I guess I transcribe because I like to learn new phrases. I did that long before I starting getting paid to do it, and would do it regardless. By writing out a cool pattern first to make sure I've got it right, then playing along with it really helps me learn it. It also helps me understand what makes one pattern cool to my ear, and another less so. I find it very valuable, and know that Vinnie and many other top players have spent a lot of time doing it.

In terms of transcribing entire tunes note for note, I don't know if that's that useful in general. However, there are tunes I've done that with, because I wanted to get every little thing a guy played - to really get in his head and be able to cop that style. So I can see value in dissecting a tune, to really get all of it together. Plus, it can help demystify an overwhelmingly cool drum part, and make it understandable and eventually playable.

I love it when students write out a beat or pattern they came up with, or transcribe something from a drummer they like. I can show them note value errors, beaming tips etc., that can help their reading as well. There are lots of ways to get better and learn new ideas. Transcribing's one of them, and helps your ear too, which is why I recommend it.

Great topic-One thing that I would suggest to the beginning transcriber is to sing or "mouth" everything you transcribe out loud and then apply it to the pulse. This allows you to internalize and also visualize it in some way. If you're having trouble with a multi-sound sourced phrase/part, you can focus on a particular sound ie: snare, hi-hat, ride cymbal etc and just sing that sound until you are able to write it and then move on to the next one.

Another thing that has helped me in the past is melodic and harmonic transcription of other instruments. It might seem daunting at first but I can truly say that you will learn so much about music and your instrument by doing this. All you need is a piano/keyboard. For one, you will be working on your melodic/intervallic ear-training which is in my opinion so important in being a better musician. You will be able to "hear" melodic and harmonic structures easier as well as just plain be able to sing a tune. Two, transcribing melodic rhythm is a little different than percussive rhythm. There's a whole other world of slurs, slides, bends, attacks, intervallic and melodic shapes etc. that creates this other side of rythm and phrasing that you can't learn on a percussive instrument IMHO. In some ways this will make your phrasing a little more "musical". Try transcribing songs w/melody, harmony, vocal melody. This is an invaluable tool for any musician. If there's no lead sheet available for the song, It allows you to go straight to the source and do it yourself and actually acquaint yourself with the song. There are so many more advantages to doing this transcription to list here. And I am definitley no master or expert in this in any way. I just think that you should try your hand at it because I has helped me in my playing and music in so many ways. BTW-I would suggest starting out with single line instruments ie: winds, brass, voice etc and then move on to more harmonic instruments.

As far as transcribing drum parts to whole songs is concerned, I think it's fun for students to learn to play a whole song exactly like the cd whether it be AC/DC or Green Day. It teaches them song structure, when and when not to play fills, time keeping, time feel etc. It gives their practicing and playing direction. I transcribed all of Tool's Eulogy for a student and had him play it along with the cd. I was able to teach him alot from that transcription-where those Tony-esque flam fills came from, cross-rhythms, hand/foot combos etc. He eventually was able to nail every part with the cd which also taught him how to concentrate. [img]wink.gif[/img]

i am in the middle of recording an album for a math metal band. the artist programmed all the parts on a drum machine, spent months on it.

and as a result was completly adimate that the parts be note for note. down to the cymbal hits.

theres no way i could memorize this guys album without 2 or 3 months practice. each song took about 3 hours to transcribe.

if i didn't have ability i wouldn't have gotten the gig.

chris perra

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Henry II:
Well, then expand my vision for me. What else besides playing the best that you are able, makes you the best musician you can be?

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think this is a terminological difference. "Musicianship" is broader than "performer" and includes composition, arrangement, theory and other disciplines. This seems to be reflected in the way higher education establishments distinguish between music degrees and performance degrees.

Your aspiration seem to be the "best player" possible - an entirely laudable, honorable and desirable thing to want to do, and not something I am trying to criticize in any way. But I think there is what my old English teacher would call a "nice distinction" between "best musician" and "best player."

As for what transciption brings to your playing? How about new ideas, expanding your vocabulary? A better understanding of what the original composer or player was trying to achieve? The ability to capture an idea and communicate it to others?

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 23, 2005 04:19 AM: Message edited by: moosetication ]</font>

I have a friend who is a big band leader (trumpet). He has 1,000's of authentic big band arrangements, some he actually paid for, some he stole [img]wink.gif[/img] (He's got some killer Airmen of Note charts), and 100's of which he transcribed by ear from the original recordings. I can understand why he did it. First because he could. Perfect pitch was, no doubt a prerequisite. Not many have the ear to transcribe an entire big band arrangement with all the horn, trombone, trumpet and rhythm section parts from a record. He also has one of the most comprehensive big band libraries in the world.

Having said that, it just seems to me that there are more efficient ways for a drummer to accomplish the goals you guys are talking about.

Nevertheless, not being one to shrink from a challenge, I am going to transcribe something. Maybe something from Milestones, I was just listening to that. I'll have to do it by hand, or learn how to use Finale Notepad. I don't think it has any notations for stick shots, you know, Philly Joe's stuff. Well, we'll see how it goes.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 23, 2005 05:00 AM: Message edited by: Henry II ]</font>

HenryII,

Notepad doesn't have notation for stick shots or cymbal x-noteheads. But if you send me your email, I can send you a file you may be able to edit them from. I don't have notepad so I'm not sure if that'll work.

Brad

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vdrummer:
HenryII,

Notepad doesn't have notation for stick shots or cymbal x-noteheads. But if you send me your email, I can send you a file you may be able to edit them from. I don't have notepad so I'm not sure if that'll work.

Brad

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks VD, I'm going to have to notate it by hand first anyway. When I'm ready to work it out on notation software I'll E you.

It's definitely faster to do it by hand. Have fun!

Brad

HenryII-I would have to disagree with your statement that having perfect pitch is a prerequisite to transcribing big band charts. I'll admit that I have never tried to transcribe a big band chart but I did take big band arranging as well as having written 1 big band arrangement and several multi horn charts when I was in school. If one is very familiar with the typical big band vocabulary it would'nt be impossible to do without perfect pitch

I"ve transcribed a couple of choruses of some of my favorite horn players and I have no special ear. A friend of mine has transcribed Coltrane, Steve Grossman, Dave Liebman solos without his instrument and perfect pitch. What he does have is decent relative pitch and an ability to identify intervals which can be learned. All one would really need is to have the ability to write down single moving lines.

If you were to apply that thinking to a typical big band arrangement, all you are really transcribing are sections with the horns: chorus, backgrounds in the solos, shout chorus, and maybe soli section( harmonized solo). All you would really need to write is the melody or top voice of each section. After that figuring out what the rest of the instruments are doing is pretty easy if you are familiar with the laws of harmony, voice leading, chord scales and instrument ranges. It's even easier if you know what voicings the arranger typically uses ie Duke, Basie, Gil Evans etc. It's easier because there are a limited amount of ways you can harmonize a single moving line without it sounding muddy or too dissonant. Plus, a few of those instruments are doubling notes of the chord or are playing unisons, so that narrows down the possiblities even more. Being familiar with how those ways are constructed and how they sound makes it easier. Having perfect pitch makes it a hell of alot easier to do it, I just think that one can transcribe without it.

BTW-those 4's on Billy Boy are just begging to be trancribed. [img]wink.gif[/img]