Transcribing
ponar
out) and am curious to find out what people's techniques are for
transcribing. Do you do it with or without your guitar? How long does
it take? Do you write in phrases, or note by note, skipping a note
here and there? I'm writing out J. Passes solo on Blue Bossa that he
did with milt jackson, and its taking me a long time. so far I only
have 27 bars and i've been doing it for about 3 hours! Is there
significant improvement in time and accuracy after every
transcription? Let me know.
Thanks,
Josh
Sam Smiley
I were you, I'd start by working on easier solos than Joe Pass's might be.
I haven't heard that solo, but judging by most of his stuff it's probably
pretty hard. I would recomend Miles Davis (from 1955-1960 or so) especially
on Kind of Blue. Paul Desmond is also a good person to start with. His
solo on Take Five was my first transcription. For guitarists, I'd say Grant
Green is a good person to start with. Check his stuff out on Matador. You
should practice transcribing before you start taking on difficult solos.
You should try both major techniques of transcribing:
1) Figure it out and write it down. Then either learn how to play it later,
or analyze it, etc.
2) Figure it out by singing it and playing each phrase. But don't write it
down. Memorize it straight from the recording. Be able to play the entire
thing before you write it down.
There are advantages to each. Probably the best way to learn the jazz
language quickly is #2, but it is also much harder IMHO.
Good luck, take it slow. If you get frustrated stop right away! Then come
back to it tommorrow or something.
Thomas F Brown
Then I learn the phrases I like. If I can't figure out
a note right away, I skip it and come back.
I rarely write things down. Usually I become so engrossed
in figuring out different fingerings and new variations
on what I've just copped that it seems pointless to
write out the original.
In article <1o9hosgf6n3227kkd...@4ax.com>,
Brian
>I have a TR-1000 which slows everything down. It helps
IMMENSELY!!! But if
>I were you, I'd start by working on easier solos than Joe
Pass's might be.
>I haven't heard that solo, but judging by most of his stuff
it's probably
>pretty hard. I would recomend Miles Davis (from 1955-1960 or
so) especially
>on Kind of Blue.
Actually, it might be harder to figure out a Joe Pass solo, but
it would probably be a lot easier to write out, as it's
(probably) mostly eighth notes. Miles would be easier to get
the notes but the phrasing would be much more difficult to
notate.
Brian
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
David Moss
"ponar" wrote...
> I'm in the middle of doing my first real transcription (writing it
> out) and am curious to find out what people's techniques are for
> transcribing. Do you do it with or without your guitar? How long does
> it take? Do you write in phrases, or note by note, skipping a note
> here and there? I'm writing out J. Passes solo on Blue Bossa that he
> did with milt jackson, and its taking me a long time. so far I only
> have 27 bars and i've been doing it for about 3 hours! Is there
> significant improvement in time and accuracy after every
> transcription? Let me know.
Another transcription question - once I've got a solo down and
memorized, i.e. I can play it accurately though slowly/haltingly,
is it a good idea to keep on practising that solo until I've got
it fluent and up to speed, or is my time better spent moving on
to the next transcription?
Jack A. Zucker
news:8mfdmk$6pg$1...@hiknews1.fzk.de...
>
> Another transcription question - once I've got a solo down and
> memorized, i.e. I can play it accurately though slowly/haltingly,
> is it a good idea to keep on practising that solo until I've got
> it fluent and up to speed, or is my time better spent moving on
> to the next transcription?
Don't just blindly practice the solo. Take the solo apart and analyze what
the soloist was doing both rhythmically/phrasing and harmonically over the
tune. Try to take those ideas and work them into other keys or even other
chords/
I would learn it enough to understand what the soloist was doing then move
on to other stuff. You can always continue working on the older solos when
you have time but you will also be constantly adding new material.
Jaz
--
Jack A. Zucker
E-Mail: j...@jackzucker.com
Web : http://www.jackzucker.com
Tom Lippincott
>> memorized, i.e. I can play it accurately though slowly/haltingly,
>> is it a good idea to keep on practising that solo until I've got
>> it fluent and up to speed, or is my time better spent moving on
>> to the next transcription?
>
>Don't just blindly practice the solo. Take the solo apart and analyze what
>the soloist was doing both rhythmically/phrasing and harmonically over the
>tune. Try to take those ideas and work them into other keys or even other
>chords/
>
>I would learn it enough to understand what the soloist was doing then move
>on to other stuff. You can always continue working on the older solos when
>you have time but you will also be constantly adding new material.
>
>
>Jaz
while I'd agree that it's probably not a good idea to "blindly" work on that
one solo to the exclusion of everything else, when I was younger I felt like I
got by far the most out of learning a transcribed solo when I played it every
day over a long period of weeks or months and got it to the point where I could
play it in my sleep along with the recording (and make it sound close enough to
the recording that the recorded solo "disappeared"). I found that the more
"elusive" things from the solo like phrasing and rhythmic feel started to seep
into my own playing and even that I began to incorporate melodic ideas from the
solo without any direct quoting. Not to say that analysis isn't a good idea as
well.
Tom Lippincott
Guitarist, Composer, Teacher
audio samples, articles, CD's at:
http://www.tomlippincott.com
icarusi
news:8mfdmk$6pg$1...@hiknews1.fzk.de...
> Another transcription question - once I've got a solo down and
> memorized, i.e. I can play it accurately though slowly/haltingly,
> is it a good idea to keep on practising that solo until I've got
> it fluent and up to speed, or is my time better spent moving on
> to the next transcription?
I'd go for both, cos I get bored with the same stuff for a long time.
Plus if you're not getting it up to speed reasonably quickly, it may
take a while before you can, if ever. It's worth trying different
fingerings. One persons fingerings aren't necessarily ideal for
everyone.
Icarusi
--
remove the 00 to reply
Gene Mills
>play it in my sleep along with the recording (and make it sound close
enough to
>the recording that the recorded solo "disappeared
This really helps you find out what a good solo is supposed to "feel" like.
I don't suggest you do it with every transcription. Some transcripts you
just may want to analyze, some may be great for lick hunts,ect. But playing
along with the recording till it "disappears" is the closest thing you will
get to the brain and heart of the player on an emotional level.
Gene
Keith Ganz
>I'm in the middle of doing my first real transcription (writing it
>out) and am curious to find out what people's techniques are for
>transcribing. Do you do it with or without your guitar? How long does
>it take? Do you write in phrases, or note by note, skipping a note
>here and there? I'm writing out J. Passes solo on Blue Bossa that he
>did with milt jackson, and its taking me a long time. so far I only
>have 27 bars and i've been doing it for about 3 hours! Is there
>significant improvement in time and accuracy after every
>transcription? Let me know.
>
The harder you make it on yourself, the more it will help your ear.
The best way is to memorize the whole solo by ear with no aids so that
you can sing the whole thing without the recording. Then either play
it or write it down from memory without the record. The easiest and
least valuable way is to pick out a note or three at a time with your
guitar and write it down. You should move from the easy way to the
hard way as your ear allows. The more you do it the easier it gets for
sure. I can tell you that the solos I transcribed years ago the hard
way I can still play note for note in any key with all the nuances to
this day and all the solos I transcribed the easy way I have
forgotten.
Keith Ganz
_____________________________________________________
Sound clips and info at http://www.mindspring.com/~mushmouth
David Moss
"Keith Ganz" wrote...
> The best way is to memorize the whole solo by ear with no aids so that
> you can sing the whole thing without the recording. Then either play
> it or write it down from memory without the record. The easiest and
> least valuable way is to pick out a note or three at a time with your
> guitar and write it down. You should move from the easy way to the
> hard way as your ear allows. The more you do it the easier it gets for
> sure. I can tell you that the solos I transcribed years ago the hard
> way I can still play note for note in any key with all the nuances to
> this day and all the solos I transcribed the easy way I have
> forgotten.
Took me a long time to digest this - but I think I disagree.
I do most transcribing with my laptop on the daily commute,
I just have the tune as an MP3 and software to type it in
in standard notation. Less often, I transcribe at home by
playing along on my guitar, then I usually don't bother to
write it down (unless I'm finished working on it and want to
archive it). I find that stuff I learnt on the guitar sticks in my
memory much better, because I'm putting the fingerings into
muscle memory, I'm much more aware of the relationship
between the line and the changes, etc. If I just took it straight
from recording to notation on the commuter train, I usually need
to refer to the notation in order to play it when I get home, and
only then do I really learn it. Or am I wrong in thinking that
contradicts what you said?
Keith Ganz
>Took me a long time to digest this - but I think I disagree.
>I do most transcribing with my laptop on the daily commute,
>I just have the tune as an MP3 and software to type it in
>in standard notation. Less often, I transcribe at home by
>playing along on my guitar, then I usually don't bother to
>write it down (unless I'm finished working on it and want to
>archive it). I find that stuff I learnt on the guitar sticks in my
>memory much better, because I'm putting the fingerings into
>muscle memory, I'm much more aware of the relationship
>between the line and the changes, etc. If I just took it straight
>from recording to notation on the commuter train, I usually need
>to refer to the notation in order to play it when I get home, and
>only then do I really learn it. Or am I wrong in thinking that
>contradicts what you said?
What you are talking about is what I was calling the easy way except
without using the guitar (which to me is still better for your ear--I
see the main value of transcribing to be improving your hearing rather
than learning solos or licks.) What I was saying the best is, is to
memorize the solo by ear without writing anything down or playing it
on guitar. Memorize the whole thing so you can sing it without the
recording note for note. (e.g. Listen to the same solo on your commute
over and over for a few days until you know the whole thing. Then you
go home and pick up the guitar and learn it from your memory.) If you
have it memorized enough to transcribe it from your own singing you
won't forget it for a good while AND that means you can really hear
it. If you can't transcribe it from your singing then you haven't
learned it well enough.
When you just pick out a few notes at a time (espec. with the guitar)
you aren't doing much for your ear, you're just getting the notes on
paper or on the fretboard. Done this way the learning part, like you
said, takes place when you then learn the notes off the page or start
memorizing fingerings. Of course there is some value in that but not
much more than just learning a solo that someone else transcribed from
a book. To really get the most out of transcribing is to excercise
your ear, your concentration, and to digest music mentally rather than
via muscle memory on the fretboard. This relates to a recent thread on
singing what you play vs. playing what you sing. If you have to learn
it on guitar to remember it then you are 'singing what you play'- you
are playing first and hearing second. If you learn it in your head and
then play it from there, you are 'playing what you sing'-- you are
hearing it first and playing it second. To me that is a much more
valuable skill to develop.
David Moss
"Keith Ganz" wrote...
> ...a good reply.
Keith, thanks, very informative. So you suggest I listen to the
same solo every day on the commute (presumably slow-down
software is OK), then get home and try to play as much as I
can from memory? Sounds like a great exercise, I'll give it a
try.
BTW, I realize now that I've been doing this a little, unintentionally -
I've been working on the solo from Ornithology on the Concord
Jazz Guitar Collective album (I think it's Jimmy, but I'm not sure),
and the other day I came home with the first chorus transcription
complete, played it from the notation I'd made, and then I found
I could get quite a way into the 2nd chorus just from memory.
I was thinking, that must be the sign of a really great solo if it's
that memorable.
2nd BTW, I'm intending to collate a lot of the transcribing advice
into a FAQ answer, I hope it's OK to repeat your advice there.
Keith Ganz
>Keith, thanks, very informative. So you suggest I listen to the
>same solo every day on the commute (presumably slow-down
>software is OK), then get home and try to play as much as I
>can from memory? Sounds like a great exercise, I'll give it a
>try.
I would suggest first finding some short solos--half chorus or one
chorus--(at least 6 or 7 GREAT ones from Chet Baker - "Sings
Everything Happens to Me") where you can memorize the whole thing in
one sitting. Listen to one over and over until you can sing the whole
solo without the record. Then you know it. It's not a matter of seeing
how much you remember when you get home- you listen to it and sing
along until you know you know it. Then when you get home you figure
out how to play it.
Chet Baker is great for this not just for his great lines but because
there are so many nuances to his timing that are hard to duplicate
that you really have to listen to nail them. Once you have the notes
you might have to listen 10 more times just to nail all the rhythmic
nuances and articulations and to me these things are of equal
importance (or more) to your ear and your playing as the notes. Also
learning an entire short solo you get a sense of the composition and
structure of it, not just some lines taken out of context.
If there are long solos that you really want to learn I would suggest
doing the same thing as above but maybe break it up into choruses. It
would be great to memorize the whole thing like above but if you can't
try a chorus a day where you really get to know each chorus inside and
out.
As far as slowing down the music, I think one basic principle applies
to every aspect of transcribing- the harder you make it on your ear,
the better it is for you. Transcribing is practice for hearing and
being able to recognize and play anything instantly and ideally you
want to do this in real time, not half speed. Doing it at half speed
will still help your ear but you should definitely work up to regular
speed as soon as you are able. Also, I imagine listening at a slowed
down speed affects some of the more intangible qualities like the time
feel, pacing, articulation, etc. which are really good things to learn
from transcribing in real time.
>2nd BTW, I'm intending to collate a lot of the transcribing advice
>into a FAQ answer, I hope it's OK to repeat your advice there.
Sure. Happy listening!
Mark Kleinhaut
"David Moss" <david...@ifia.fzk.de> wrote:
> 2nd BTW, I'm intending to collate a lot of the transcribing advice
> into a FAQ answer, I hope it's OK to repeat your advice there.
>
David, if your doing a FAQ chapter on transcribing, I hope you might
mention that there is a minority viewpoint within the NG that
transcribing is at best unneccessary, and at worst potentialy damaging
to creativity.
--
Mark Kleinhaut
Info and soundclips available at
www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Amphora.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
jimmyb
already
"Mark Kleinhaut" <markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ms7g9$2os$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
David Moss
> David, if your doing a FAQ chapter on transcribing, I hope you might
> mention that there is a minority viewpoint within the NG that
> transcribing is at best unneccessary, and at worst potentialy damaging
> to creativity.
"jimmyb" wrote...
> yeah but it is the fastest way to get an ear if you are not blessed with
one
> already
Yeah, I'd already thought of Mark's point, what I was
going to say that of the great players around on the
NG, some still transcribe (e.g. Clay) and some never
have done (e.g. Mark). I believe this is the universal
dilemma for students of any art form - how to learn from
the greats but still end up developing your own voice.
How about you, Jimmy, I'm sure you don't transcribe
other people's stuff any more - do you remember when
you stopped? Was it a conscious decision?
BTW, I wanted to try out Keith Ganz's advice, I was
delighted to find I could already remember Jim Hall's
Street of Dreams solo really well, two choruses, I could
whiste it off tune perfectly. But when I got back home to
my guitar, couldn't get my fingers around the damn thing -
his licks are all so unaccustomed for me, it's all in the nuances
and timing. So I figured I had to try something easier, shut
my eyes, stuck my hand into the CD rack, and came
up with... Coltrane. Back to the drawing board.
Joe Finn
jimmyb wrote:
> yeah but it is the fastest way to get an ear if you are not blessed with one
> already
I still transcribe once in a while. I think the ear can continue to develop. I
think you can hear more and more every year. I'm 47. I try to persuade students
to transcribe. Not in an attempt to duplicate someone else's solo, but to break
it down and discover something about the concept. And besides, as above, it's
good ear training.....joe
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Mark Kleinhaut
"David Moss" <david...@ifia.fzk.de> wrote:
> > "Mark Kleinhaut" wrote...
> > David, if your doing a FAQ chapter on transcribing, I hope you might
> > mention that there is a minority viewpoint within the NG that
> > transcribing is at best unneccessary, and at worst potentialy
damaging
> > to creativity.
>
> "jimmyb" wrote...
with
> one
> > already
>
> going to say that of the great players around on the
> NG, some still transcribe (e.g. Clay) and some never
> have done (e.g. Mark). I believe this is the universal
> dilemma for students of any art form - how to learn from
> the greats but still end up developing your own voice.
>
> How about you, Jimmy, I'm sure you don't transcribe
> other people's stuff any more - do you remember when
> you stopped? Was it a conscious decision?
>
> BTW, I wanted to try out Keith Ganz's advice, I was
> delighted to find I could already remember Jim Hall's
> Street of Dreams solo really well, two choruses, I could
> whiste it off tune perfectly. But when I got back home to
> my guitar, couldn't get my fingers around the damn thing -
> his licks are all so unaccustomed for me, it's all in the nuances
> and timing. So I figured I had to try something easier, shut
> my eyes, stuck my hand into the CD rack, and came
> up with... Coltrane. Back to the drawing board.
>
Johhny Smith in particuar, I think. The guys who like to do it keep
doing it because it becomes part of how they process what they hear and
develop themselves. It can be a very useful tool and, as Jimmy said,
is probably the fastes way to develop your ear.
If one chooses not to do transcriptions, for whatever reason, it should
be understood that in no way does this mean that one need not listen to
music in still much of the same way as the one who does transcribe.
When I listen to music, I can ususally sing (and play) some of the
phrases I've heard after one listening- and in fact, this comes into
play on the bandstand when trading licks and so-forth with other
players. With each repeated listening, I can sing more and more of the
solo. But I don't write it down and I never try to play things exactly
like anyone else did, so I would not call this transcribing. But I
would call it critical listening and ear training, which is really the
whole point (I hope).
David Moss
"Mark Kleinhaut" wrote...
> You might like to know that Jack Wilkins still does transcriptions,
> Johhny Smith in particuar, I think. The guys who like to do it keep
> doing it because it becomes part of how they process what they hear and
> develop themselves. It can be a very useful tool and, as Jimmy said,
> is probably the fastes way to develop your ear.
One guy who sees it the same way as you, maybe even more
extreme, is Jim Hall - I read in an interview that he doesn't
even listen to jazz these days, except occasionally to hear new
guys. He said that's partly because he gets enough of jazz when
he's at work, but also to avoid taking on board other people's
ideas.
So maybe the fact that you share Jim Hall's attitude to maintaining
originality explains why you sound exactly like him?
(kidding!)
Mark Kleinhaut
"David Moss" <david...@ifia.fzk.de> wrote:
(snip)
>
> So maybe the fact that you share Jim Hall's attitude to maintaining
> originality explains why you sound exactly like him?
>
> (kidding!)
>
Thomas F Brown
>extreme, is Jim Hall - I read in an interview that he doesn't
>even listen to jazz these days, except occasionally to hear new
>guys. He said that's partly because he gets enough of jazz when
>he's at work, but also to avoid taking on board other people's
>ideas.
Over the past three or four years, I've almost totally given
up listening to jazz guitar records. I don't buy anything by
a new player, and rarely pick up anything old. After 20+ years
of collecting and listening to jazz guitar, there is very
little that anyone can play that I haven't heard 100 times
before. I'm just bored with listening to it, although I
still like to play it. So I listen to singers and other
instruments, or listen to classical or pop or whatever.
I already own enough jazz guitar records to last the
rest of my life and then some.
Bruce Clawson
>
> In article <8muimn$7s4$1...@hiknews1.fzk.de>,
> David Moss <david...@ifia.fzk.de> wrote:
> >One guy who sees it the same way as you, maybe even more
> >extreme, is Jim Hall - I read in an interview that he doesn't
> >even listen to jazz these days, except occasionally to hear new
> >guys. He said that's partly because he gets enough of jazz when
> >he's at work, but also to avoid taking on board other people's
> >ideas.
>
> still like to play it.
That is why I quip to people that I only go to concerts that I'm in.
This is always meant as humorous, but there is a sparkle of reality to
it too. I've always felt that before you become a reasonably good
practitioner of something you develop a certain disdain for it because
it is so familiar. But the thrill of discovering something new when
making music never has, and I hope never will, diminish.
Bruce
Keith Ganz
>Over the past three or four years, I've almost totally given
>up listening to jazz guitar records. I don't buy anything by
>a new player, and rarely pick up anything old. After 20+ years
>of collecting and listening to jazz guitar, there is very
>little that anyone can play that I haven't heard 100 times
>before. I'm just bored with listening to it, although I
>still like to play it. So I listen to singers and other
>instruments, or listen to classical or pop or whatever.
>I already own enough jazz guitar records to last the
>rest of my life and then some.
>
Agreed, except for me it's not just guitar records but any typical
jazz records. As I became more interested in the overall sound of the
music and the shape of a piece and less interested in hip solos I
found that most jazz albums held little interest for me. I don't
listen to music that much these days but when I do it's usually rock
like Ben Folds Five or Rickie Lee Jones or something.
icarusi
> but also to avoid taking on board other people's
> ideas.
I've heard this a few times and it doesn't ring true. Firstly because
I've never heard anyone that doesn't sound a little like someone else,
and also it's very difficult to play exactly the same piece as someone
else and sound the same as them without a 'lot' more than just playing
the same notes with the same phrasing. If you're in a rich vein of
ideas then you don't need to listen to anyone else, but I haven't
heard of anyone where this mode has been endless.
Sean Andrews
transcriptions, where you had to drop the needle repeatedly on
the LP before you could steal licks from anybody? Did your mom
berate you for doing this, too? You knew it was time for a new
copy when you needed TWO pennys to keep iton track.
Gene Mills
Sean Andrews wrote in message
<042247b0...@usw-ex0105-034.remarq.com>...
Mark Kleinhaut
Bruce Clawson <bcla...@baraboo.com> wrote:
> Thomas F Brown wrote:
> >
> > In article <8muimn$7s4$1...@hiknews1.fzk.de>,
> > David Moss <david...@ifia.fzk.de> wrote:
> > >One guy who sees it the same way as you, maybe even more
> > >extreme, is Jim Hall - I read in an interview that he doesn't
> > >even listen to jazz these days, except occasionally to hear new
> > >guys. He said that's partly because he gets enough of jazz when
> > >ideas.
> >
> > <snip, snip, snip, snip>
> > I'm just bored with listening to it, although I
> > still like to play it.
>
> This is always meant as humorous, but there is a sparkle of reality to
> it too. I've always felt that before you become a reasonably good
> practitioner of something you develop a certain disdain for it because
> it is so familiar. But the thrill of discovering something new when
> making music never has, and I hope never will, diminish.
>
> Bruce
>
playing their asses off. Some concerts are duds, unfortunately that is
inevitable, but when the sparks fly it's like watching (and
participating) in a miracle. It's called "inspiration", and I don't
understand how anyone can ever get tired of that. When I hear a great
concert or a superb CD, it is totally rejuivinating. Especially after
an inspiring live show, I'll go home and practice till the wee hours.
I don't listen to lots of different CD's, but the ones I do listen too
I'll go over hundreds of time and keep hearing new things.
When I play live or make my CD's, I strive for that inspiration, so
I'll hope that no one would ever be be bored with it. And I'll hope it
doesn't sound like everything you've heard before. I don't know what
there is to distain other than half-hearted playing.
Paul Shigihara
Gene Mills wrote:
> When the marantz superscope appeared, I was in heaven.
>
Don´t we all get older......went through a couple of these almost 20
years ago!
Mike Bierly
get to a record player... and we couldnt afford pennies, we had to make
our own out of rocks....
just kidding... couldnt resist it
now I use Sound Forge ('cause I have it)... grab a song, open it up and
play just the little phrase I want as many times as I want... I can
even slow it down if I want to.... its a beautiful thing
Mick
icarusi
news:ROIl5.8488$IH.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> When the marantz superscope appeared, I was in heaven.
Is that the 3 head portable cassette recorder?
Gene Mills
icarusi wrote in message <8netuj$r6r$8...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
I don't think this one was. I picked it up in 1980, in boston. It had a
switch on the side to play back at half speed. The rewind went out several
times, and finally retired it. Used the ibanez, the riffomatic, riffmaster,
just about everything except that high priced one from ridgerunner? music.
Used software-Transcriber, slowgold, Transcribe, and settled on Musician's
CD player. That's the best one in my opinion. Less artifacts as you slow it
down. A little clunkier in the interface, than say Transcribe, but much
better audio quality at slower speeds. Transcribe can locate and isolate
smaller fragments easier than MCDplyer, but the audio quality isn't as good
(imo).
Clay Moore
>I don't think this one was. I picked it up in 1980, in boston. It had a
>switch on the side to play back at half speed. The rewind went out several
>times, and finally retired it.
I had the very same problem. It worked (with one rewind replacement) for about
ten years, which is pretty good for a piece of gear like that. It didn't seem
worth it to fix the 2nd time, because who knows where you can get that done
and for how much.
> Used the ibanez, the riffomatic, riffmaster,
>just about everything except that high priced one from ridgerunner? music.
>Used software-Transcriber, slowgold, Transcribe, and settled on Musician's
>CD player. That's the best one in my opinion. Less artifacts as you slow it
>down. A little clunkier in the interface, than say Transcribe, but much
>better audio quality at slower speeds. Transcribe can locate and isolate
>smaller fragments easier than MCDplyer, but the audio quality isn't as good
>(imo).
Same thing do. MCDP is my favorite.
Clay Moore --
jazz guitarist
cl...@claymoore.com
http://www.claymoore.com/
To find out where I'm performing each week, sign up on my mailing list. Send a blank e-mail to cmgigs-s...@topica.com
icarusi
> >> When the marantz superscope appeared, I was in heaven.
> >
> >Is that the 3 head portable cassette recorder?
> >
> >Icarusi
>
> I don't think this one was. I picked it up in 1980, in boston. It
had a
> switch on the side to play back at half speed. The rewind went out
several
> times, and finally retired it. Used the ibanez, the riffomatic,
riffmaster,
> just about everything except that high priced one from ridgerunner?
music.
> Used software-Transcriber, slowgold, Transcribe, and settled on
Musician's
> CD player. That's the best one in my opinion. Less artifacts as you
slow it
> down. A little clunkier in the interface, than say Transcribe, but
much
> better audio quality at slower speeds. Transcribe can locate and
isolate
> smaller fragments easier than MCDplyer, but the audio quality isn't
as good
> (imo).
I think 'superscope' was probably the range rather than the model. The
one I have is the CD-330 '3-head, dual flywheel' 'professional, Dolby'
etc. I think it was intended to compete with a similar looking Sony.
No half speed but 'cue and revue' made it useful for transcribing. I
think I halfspeeded on an Akai 4000DS recording at 7.5 ips and
playback at 3.75 ips.