I’m transcribing a standard from Ella and Louis right now – phrasing and all. It’s…hard.
Because Ella’s phrasing is so complex and hip. The back phrasing floats across beats in a way that swings and is completely ineffable.
So the question becomes, how do you balance accuracy and readability?
On the one hand, you want the notated version to be as true to the sources as you can.
On the other hand, perfect accuracy will have all sorts of layered tuplets that become a bear to read for a performer.
I am looking to lean towards a tactic I’ve used with pop tune arrangements. Particularly with younger singers, I’ve been known to transcribe the song into very square rhythms – even flattening out syncopations. This makes is exceedingly readable. And then I include a note that explains that and says to learn the rhythms by rote from the recording RATHER than from the notation.
The thing is, recordings are universally available, and it’s far easier for our ears to learn Ella’s phrasing than for our eyes to understand it. It takes a little more work for the ensemble, and it means the notation isn’t 100% self-contained. But it makes the score legible and it makes sure the original recording is placed front and center in the interpretation. (Also, it means I won’t spend hours working on accurate rhythmic transcription – a clear approximation will be fine and much easier to write.)
What do you think? Would you prefer a stand-alone score that doesn’t need the recording? Or would you prefer a score that acknowledges the limitations of written music and points towards a better solution?