LearnJazzPiano.com archives: Modifying Recordings

loveforJAZZ -- 06/24/2007, 16:19:34 -- #35568

Today I was transcribing "I've Got a Feeling I'm Falling" by Fats Waller. Boy, what a difficult time trying to figure out the exact notes to that particular song. I almost felt like quiting because I thought I couldn't even accomplish this task! Luckily, I didn't quit and I kept on going. So I turned toward Transcribe! to ask a few questions about it. I downloaded the program 30 days ago but it just expired today. I know the main purpose of Transcribe! is to slow things down, but what are all the other benefits Transcribe! has to offer? Most recordings of Fats Waller have Fats singing and have other instruments playing along with Fats. In the beginning of the song "When Somebody Thinks Your Wonderful", there is a clarinet soloing over Fats piano accompaniment. The piano part sounds wonderful but I can't even hear correctly what Fats is playing! Is there a way that I can take the clarinet out of the song and have it so that there is only Fats playing? In other words, is there a way to take out all the unwanted "layers" so there is the one "layer" that you do want? If this is possible, tell me how it is done. The recordings from the 1940's and back are of poor sound quality and are very hard to hear correctly. Is there a way to modify the sound quality so that it is easier to hear? If I could modify the sound quality so it sounds like the recording was just recorded recently, that would be great! If this is possible, tell me how it is done. Finally, the technology we have today is far more advanced than the technology we had a hundred years ago. Today, we have computers, television, electronic stuff, telephones, celephones, computer games, and more! and don't forget, Transcribe! Of course, they didn't have Transcribe! back then. Today, a program like that would make transcribing a whole lot easier. But, how the heck did transcribers get around in transcribing the recordings they wanted when they didn't have all this technology that we have today? If they were attempting to make a transcription, their transcriptions would most likely be unaccurate!

7 -- 06/24/2007, 19:07:15 -- #35568

I only want to address a couple of issues here: "how the heck did transcribers get around in transcribing the recordings they wanted when they didn't have all this technology that we have today?" One might just as well ask how Leonardo da Vinci could accurately visualize and then draw fluid motion properties using ONLY the naked eye CENTURIES AGO. You will find as you become more familiar with any individual idiom that there are conventions that crop up again and again. Being able to recognize these conventions is one of the tricks. How to transcribe at speed? Only listen to a portion of the phrase and then play it back slo-mo in your mind's ear. This takes a good deal of expertise to do, but I pretty much don't have to slow anything down anymore via technology because I can do it in my head now (just like the Leonardo example). I've had to transcribe Fats Waller recordings, and yes, the sound quality can be a bit sketchy. What makes things even worse is that often you'll find that the piano Fats (or any of those guys is using) is not tuned to 440. It can be maddening, for example, to try to decipher if they're playing a B or a Bb. Even more recent recordings are often not tuned to 440. Last week I had to transcribe Tom Petty's "Last Dance with Mary Ann". Those sonzabitches sped up the tape to where they are playing almost exactly halfway between A and A#! The tune is obviously fingered using open chords on guitar (Am G D etc), and there is no way that they make harmonicas that are "between the cracks"! The sound engineer must've sped up the tape because playing it at the original tempo in A minor was dragging. If you're working on a guitar tune, it's not so difficult to retune the guitar - but if you're trying to work out a Fats Waller song where your piano is out of tune with his, you can really pull your hair out! "If they were attempting to make a transcription, their transcriptions would most likely be unaccurate!" The word is spelled "inaccurate". Are you saying that because they weren't able to slow down recordings that the quality of their transcriptions would suffer? I've read through some pretty inaccurate transcriptions in my life, but I've always blamed that on the individual transcriber's limitations and laziness rather than a lack of technology. When I speak of a transcriber's "laziness and limitations", I am speaking of those nameless guys who have worked for so long at the music houses doing transcriptions that they literally become an institution. Those guys get paid per piece, which means that they get paid the same for doing an easy transcription as the do for a difficult piece. Hence the laziness. In addition, NOBODY ever checks their work! The number of crappy inaccurate transcriptions I've suffered through runs in the thousands. And what am I supposed to do? Write them a nasty letter saying "You guys really blew it in line 37 bar 14 where you say that it's an Em chord when in reality it's a Gb7#5/D". They would simply reply "Typos are inevitable". So these same lazy imcompetents still keep their jobs that they've had for the last fifty years and I get to grouse about it here. The advent of this new technology has NOT made transcriptions any more accurate than they used to be according to my experience. The people who have really good transcriptions are the transcriptions done by fanatics. There are loads of spot-on Charlie Parker transcriptions (all done long before the advent of our precious modern technology), and the best transcriptions in the business are the books on Hendrix, Metallica and Zep. Why? Because the guys who transcribe that stuff are FANATICS! Are the transcribers using this modern technology to make these transcritpions? There were many excellent Hendrix transcripions available as early as the 1970's (no "modern" technology here kids), the same is true of Led Zeppelin. However, I will tell you how we used to figure out fast passages in the olden days - We'd record it to tape and then slow the tape to half speed (which brings it down exactly an octave). Tape has been around for a loooooong time.

loveforJAZZ -- 06/24/2007, 19:41:13 -- #35568

Sorry for the misspelled word. A typo!

7 -- 06/24/2007, 20:33:19 -- #35568

As they'll say "Typos are inavoidable"

7 -- 06/24/2007, 20:35:31 -- #35568

Whoops, I meant "unavoidabble", I mean "unevitable" <g>

Whacky -- 06/24/2007, 21:54:29 -- #35568

"grouse" - I had forgotten about that word - I can't wait to use it in a sentence! Thanks! :) (you know I love you)

loveforJAZZ -- 06/25/2007, 04:35:27 -- #35568

LOL 7.

loveforJAZZ -- 06/25/2007, 04:47:46 -- #35568

There is only one thing I have to disagree with. How to transcribe at speed? Only listen to a portion of the phrase and then play it back slo-mo in your mind's ear. I'm not really sure if "playing it back slow-mo in your mind's ear" really works. I really believe you have to hear something before you can actually "play it back slo-mo in your mind's ear". I have transcribed really fast runs of Fats Waller that really whip across those keys! AND BELIEVE ME, I COULD NEVER "PLAY IT BACK IN SLOW-MO IN MY MIND'S EAR." I usually have to go on the computer and run Transcribe! to slow the music down for me, but my Transcribe! expired yesterday and now I can't run it anymore. This is all telling me that you don't totally favor Transcribe! and you think that it easier just doing it in your head. Or maybe you don't own the program...

loveforJAZZ -- 06/25/2007, 04:52:51 -- #35568

I'm thinking about buying the program soon.

sid -- 06/25/2007, 07:18:00 -- #35568

The most recent versions of Transcribe include a graphic equalizer.  It might be possible to tune out some of the clarinet sound by pulling back on the relevant EQ frequency channels.  But it won't be very effective.  Separating out the instrumental and vocal layers from an audio recording is still not technologically possible, and may never be. sid

7 -- 06/25/2007, 21:44:50 -- #35568

Playing back slo-mo in the mind's ear is something that takes years to acquire. It's not magic. Keep working on it and have patience with yourself. It will come.

jazzvirtuoso -- 06/26/2007, 07:05:38 -- #35568

If i were you i'd buy har-bal (its a great mastering program), you can remaster wave type files and bring the piano part to the front and make it louder. After that try to download a midi of that particular piece and then  download vanbasco player, then use it to compare notes, your ears will grow by leaps and bounds in the process. And vanbasco midi player will even let you see what notes are being played too. JV'

Copyright © 2005 by Scot Ranney. All rights reserved.

Click Here for more information about performances and clinics. Click Here to sign up for Scot's music announcements.