[lesacks]

So, I'm using "transcribed" as in learn by ear, whether or not you write it down, from a recording or such.
And by bite I mean the size of the bit or chunk you can work on at one moment like "10 seconds" or "16 notes" or "a phrase, but no longer than 2 bars" or "one chorus" or "I can hear a 10 minute solo once and rattle it out, straight off" or such.

Is it that the better you get the bigger bite you can take or does the length of the chunk remain the same but you can handle more complexity or does it just "depend" or?

 

[BrianMitchellBrody]

I can transcribe by ear no problem but my issue is when I go to write it down on paper it takes a very long time.

I do read music but sight reading has never been my strongest suit but if I can sing it I can play it.

I take on three or four bars at a time as I like to work out complete phrases by ear and transferring them
to Sibelius or Finale.

Using a slow down program has made this process much easier when compared to learning something
from old technology like LP's and Cassettes.

 

[turf3]

Sometimes it's one note. Sometimes it's a whole phrase.

If a recording is real clear, I may be able to hear and sing back an entire phrase - write it down - check that it's right.

If the recording isn't real clear (whether the recording process or the sound of a particular note as played) I may have to go right up to the note and try to cut the record off right at that note to be able to hold it in my head and sing it and write it down. (An example of this might be a note that's semi-ghosted amongst a long line of clearly articulated louder notes.)

So, like most things,

IT DEPENDS.

 

[datsaxman]

Me too. Depends on the song and the player and a lot of stuff.

 

[Morph1590]

Like everyone else, for me it depends on the player, the speed, the complexity, the recording quality. Sometimes I can take a whole phrases (usually more like a few notes), other times I have to go note by note. I do think as your ear improves, and your vocabularly develops, you can transcribe longer phrases, and faster.

 

[mmichel]

I agree with everyone else that it depends on the player and the complexity of the solo.

I'll also add that it depends on how much you've listened to the tune. For example, there are many Miles Davis solos that I haven't played but could transcribe entirely from memory, both because they are simple and lyrical, and because I've listened to the recordings enough to have internalized them. If you want to learn a solo, it's a good idea to listen to it enough that you internalize it (i.e., you can sing the solo from memory) first.

 

[Pete Thomas]

But of a confusion between terms. For transcribe means to write down, memorise means to, er..., memorise.

Very different things unless you mean to metaphorically write in a wall in your memory palace.

I'll often just memorise things - often subconsciously. Transcribing is a deliberate effort to write it down - and to, it's not "proper" transcribing unless I make the effort to actually analyse it and work out what's involved contextually.

But maybe that's just me.

 

[lesacks]

depends on the player

I'm sure! I don't suppose there's a one size fits all! Which is why I was curious about how it varied amongst players here.

 

[Keith Ridenhour]

this is more about the why than the what. If I need a background or head for a gig then I have to memorize /transcribe the entire song. These days you dont get written music at my gigs. you get a you tube you are supposed to figure out. If I am doing it for ear training I'll find something I like and play it in many keys.

 

[lesacks]

But maybe that's just me.

No. There's was a whole long thread arguing about that not so long ago (not shown in recommend reading below, for me, anyway!).
In that thread "transcribing" was used, by the OP and others, to refer to the act of; listening (absorbing, singing etc) and playing back. That's what I was thinking of. Whether one remembers it 5 minutes, an hour, a day or more later or write it down is another thing.... And from the above replies, seems to makes no difference to how much a person can bite off (?)

 

[Keith Ridenhour]

If I want to transcibe something for gig I need to remember it for months. Or at least get it back in gig shape quickly. The strict ear training things i do like licks in many keys, thats more for chops.. I can't usually pull out a practiced lick in a solo. I get something as the result of the ear training but not usually the exact lick K

 

[mmichel]

No. There's was a whole long thread arguing about that not so long ago (not shown in recommend reading below, for me, anyway!).
In that thread "transcribing" was used, by the OP and others, to refer to the act of; listening (absorbing, singing etc) and playing back. That's what I was thinking of.

Here's that thread.

Most musicians I know (in jazz contexts, at least) use the term "transcribe" in the same way that Lesacks does above, to refer to the act of learning a solo, tune, etc., by ear.
And it's not just my immediate cohort. There are examples on the web of a number of prominent saxophonists (e.g., Bob Reynolds, Chris Potter, Joshua Redman, Michael Brecker, etc.) using it in the same way, and specifying that they "transcribe, but do not write down" solos.

 

[datsaxman]

No. There's was a whole long thread arguing about that not so long ago (not shown in recommend reading below, for me, anyway!).
In that thread "transcribing" was used, by the OP and others, to refer to the act of; listening (absorbing, singing etc) and playing back. That's what I was thinking of. Whether one remembers it 5 minutes, an hour, a day or more later or write it down is another thing.... And from the above replies, seems to makes no difference to how much a person can bite off (?)

Pete often will focus on one word only, hoping to correct your thinking. Here he ignores (or disregards) your disclaimer.
I thought you were quite clear in the first words of the OP. For what that is worth.

But PT is right that literal transcribing, the writing down of the notes, is a rather different thing than memorizing.
They are both good, but require (some) different skills and deliver (some) different results. For me at least.

 

[Pete Thomas]

and specifying that they "transcribe, but do not write down" solos.

ie what I would call learning or memorising a solo.

The word transcribe is specifically defined to mean to write down, otherwise it isn't transcribing surely? I've never seen a definition in which it means memorising, which would be pointless as there's already a word for that, ie memorising.

If the word is used for two different things, then how do you differentiate?

Etymology:

From Latin transcribere, from trans- 'across' + scribere 'write'.

 

[mmichel]

ie what I would call learning or memorising a solo.

The word transcribe is specifically defined to mean to write down, otherwise it isn't transcribing surely? I've never seen a definition in which it means memorising, which would be pointless as there's already a word for that, ie memorising.

No. You can memorize things without learning them by ear (e.g., by reading a written transcription). You can also memorize things without being able to play them on your instrument.

As lesacks said above, this version of transcribe means something like "to learn (to play back) by listening (only)". In principle at least, you can play a solo by ear without memorizing it, and you can memorize a solo without learning it by ear and/or without being able to play it on your instrument. So these don't mean the same thing.

Etymology:

From Latin transcribere, from trans- 'across' + scribere 'write'.

This is also discussed in the thread I linked to above. You could play the same etymology game with the word "describe". To wit:

From Latin describere, from de- 'down' + scribere 'write'.​

Yet few people would argue that the term "oral description" is an oxymoron because descriptions must be written down.

 

[Pete Thomas]

Etymology is not the same as contemporary definition. It can help to explain the definition, but not replace it.

For example, just because Diocletian used describere solely when writing (when he wasn't too busy watching Christians being eaten by lions) doesn't mean that is the current meaning.

But you can memorise from listening, from reading something that was previously transcribed or composed onto manuscript. But when you transcribe you write it down. The etymology is not what defines it, but is interesting to know nonethesless. Some old words evolve like describere, others don't like transcribere.

I'm not saying it won't, but you can tell from all the dictionaries it hasn't happened, yet.

 

[lesacks]

And yet the difference between writing down, memorising or just "getting it" long enough to play back during a shed session makes no difference to the question above

 

[Pete Thomas]

And yet the difference between writing down, memorising or just "getting it" long enough to play back during a shed session makes no difference to the question above

It does to me. If I'm transcribing I can sit there all day until it's finished.

If I'm memorising, my brain starts to hurt much sooner.

 

[lesacks]

Ok.
So, when you are transcribing do you listen to bigger or smaller chunks of the tune then when you are memorising?

 

[Pete Thomas]

It all depends I might identify patterns repetitions or developments. If something is more abstract it could be as small as note by note.