Accuracy of Van Halen's transcriptions

General Music Discussion
#1

Honestly, Jamie’s transcriptions and lessons on Van Halen are far from accurate. I’ve spoken to him about them and he has admitted some years later after making the courses that they are not accurate to any appreciable degree.

He does a good job of giving beginners and experienced players an overview of the style of Edward, but unfortunately-in the case of EVH’s playing specifically-that ultimately causes quite a bit of problems…understanding his playing only happens when you get it really right in very, very specific note-for-note, fingering for fingering, picking direction for picking direction and articulation for articulation detail.

Which isn’t a slight on Jamie…his resume speaks for itself. He’s an outstanding and very knowledgeable player with experience that any player would envy. But with regard to Van Halen lessons, he’s not really into it on the level of detail that is really necessary to understand and teach EVH’s playing.

Warning about Andy James Guitar Academy
#2

Ahhh well, I watched them when I was first getting into EVH so maybe I’m remembering it as being better than it was.

These days, Tom Shreds is hands down the best EVH instructor, IMO.

#3

Sadly, Tom is also among the worst offenders in the misinformation and inaccuracy department. I’ve spoken to him regularly before and after he started posting his videos and selling his “lessons”. EVERY video example he’s posted has SIGNIFICANT problems. He knows that his lessons are inaccurate, but he made them with the intent of monetizing…NOT with the intent of actually teaching the material accurately.

He only started studying EVH about three years ago. He told me so himself. I’ve tried to correct the many mistakes that he’s made by teaching him and giving him my transcriptions which he readily acknowledges are the only accurate ones out there…but since he already produced and edited his videos and “lessons” in advance of starting his invasion of Van Halen lesson algorithms, he won’t implement anything to correct them at this point.

It’s a shame…he’s a nice guy and can play the guitar…I think he’s studied Yngwie a lot more than Van Halen, but he’s just not in a position to be teaching the material. His lessons are so riddled with inaccuracies that it causes more problems than solutions…just like Jamie’s lessons. The fact that these guys actually charge money to not teach people how Eddie actually played is a travesty to me.

1 Like
#4

I see. Well, I’m gonna stop the conversation here especially since we’ve veered off topic pretty hard. Cheers!

#5

This is relevant to the topic of getting ripped off through online lessons.

As a matter of fact, Pete’s “Eruption” video lessons are terrible. It was the first attempt at a comprehensive note-for-note YouTube tutorial for the piece and I applaud him for that. He’s obviously a great player, but his understanding of Van Halen music is limited. That series of videos he did was done many, many years ago and he has certainly improved his understanding of the piece since then. Some of that improvement has come with things I showed him. He does try to keep learning from Edward as I do, and for that he deserves a lot of credit. But his status as a “guitar celebrity” unfortunately tricks people into thinking that his understanding of what Edward actually played IS correct simply because he is a “guitar celebrity” with many likes and subscribers.

No one actually attempted to study “Eruption” in detail using all available audio, video and interview evidence until the transcription that I created with the help of a few friends (including Troy) over the course of about six years from start to finish…though I began studying the piece in 1986, I didn’t begin to set about the task to create a proper score until around 2015.

My transcription appeared in the February 2021 issue of Guitar World along with an article with many of my words which was intended to appear in the EVH memorial issue in January, but it appeared in the February issue because it took some extra time for the magazine to get publishing clearances approved. You can buy a physical copy of the issue here:

It is currently the most accurate transcription of the piece. I have also done a note-for-note series that walks you through how to play it. This is the first video in the series and you can look on my YouTube channel for the remaining parts: https://youtu.be/vs2E_tPiCf4?si=P_htkgfAu9bwdgcq

My friend Ed DeGenaro (that I met through this forum) also created an easy to follow Soundslice file for the piece that plays the original recording along with my score. You can see that here: ERUPTION Allen Garber transcription - Van Halen | Soundslice

Troy’s “Jump” solo tutorial is WILDLY inaccurate. For one, he is in the wrong tuning. He mentioned this in his solo tutorial video only because I taught him the correct tuning and I shared my note-for-note transcription of the entire song with him. Look at the 0:52 second mark of his “Jump” solo tutorial and you will see him admit that he is in the wrong tuning. At that point in the video, he posts an image of the May 2024 issue of Guitar World.

My name is mentioned in that article on the making of the ‘1984’ album on pages 54-55 by my friend Chris Gill, the writer of the article, as being the person that proved for the first time that Edward used his vintage Flying V on the album version of “Jump”. Chris and I collaborated on the research for that article for a little over a year before it appeared in the magazine. This is actually why the previously unpublished photo of Edward holding the vintage Flying V was used for the cover of that issue. You can buy a physical copy of that issue through Guitar World and you can see it here digitally:

Again, Tom privately acknowledged to me that my transcription of “Jump” is indeed the only accurate one, but he already created his videos in his rush to monetize without knowing what he’s teaching is accurate and he won’t re-shoot his videos with the correct information any time soon, if ever.

Here is my complete transcription of the guitar parts on “Jump”: Jump - Full Song.pdf - Google Drive

Here you will see the exact tuning at the upper left hand corner of the first page. It is not simply “F tuning” as Tom states in his video, but it is actually tuned about 3/4 of a whole step higher than standard tuning. That exact tuning is as follows:

1st string: F +27.7 cents
2nd string: C +27.9 cents
3rd string: G# +29.6 cents
4th string: D# 30.0 cents
5th string: A# +30.0 cents
6th string: F +27.7 cents

You can see me play through the rhythm guitar parts that were played under the keyboard solo using my own ‘58 reissue Gibson Flying V here:

This section was where I proved the tuning and that Edward used the Flying V to record it and all the guitar parts on the full track. There are open strings in the chord voicings that cannot be played in any other tuning than the correct one that I notated.

You can see me play through the guitar solo here:

The problem is that you and many others are bamboozled by Tom’s high production value videos. His audio is carefully tweaked and clear camera angles are used along with backing tracks from the original recordings…but unfortunately these high production values do not have commensurately accurate ACTUAL CONTENT.

And I say that is unfortunate…in his rush to monetize his videos, Tom is also sharing wildly inaccurate information that ultimately causes more confusion for people that genuinely want to learn directly from Edward through the solid evidence that he left behind which I use when I transcribe his music. Tom is a nice guy, but he is spreading misinformation in all of his videos. Literally every lesson he has posted is inaccurate and often very incomplete and lacking in detail.

4 Likes
#6

Wow dude, I see. So because guys like Tom missed the tuning by a few cents and missed some open strings EVH might have accidentally clipped they’re wildly inaccurate and scamming people for money. Gotcha!

1 Like
#7

Well it is more than missing the tuning by a few cents and it is more than “missing a few open string notes”. It is an almost total lack of understanding of how Edward played everything. And I can go into the exact details of every note, every fingering, every pick stroke that Tom and Pete and others that you can name have gotten WILDY incorrect. I have the evidence of video, audio and interviews that prove it.

Now if you are just wanting to get a very, very basic understanding of general techniques that Edward used like right hand tapping or pick slides for instance, one of these very inaccurate lessons might be a place for a rank beginner to start.

But ultimately, Tom and Jamie and others represent their lessons as being accurate to the way Eddie actually played it and they are charging money on that basis. They have no understanding of Edward’s playing based on the facts and evidence. So wouldn’t you say that someone that says “Buy my Van Halen lessons because they are note-for-note correct” is actually ripping people off because they don’t in fact know how to play the material note-for-note correct?

You and others may not actually want to learn things on a note-for-note correct basis and that’s clearly fine. If you want just an extremely surface level general “in the style of” tutorial on Van Halen, you are still being ripped off if you pay money for these lessons because they don’t even have a fundamental understanding of Edward’s playing even on that level.

I think if you one day study the material that I have left you in the above post, you can understand what I’m saying. It is pretty much impossible to comprehend these things if you don’t.

1 Like
#8

Honestly, comparing your Jump transcription to Tom’s tutorial, the differences are so small that one could still use Tom’s tutorial to execute the solo in front of an audience and everyone would hear it and say it was played accurately.

I get that you aren’t considering it a truly accurate transcription unless it’s noted what Eddie ate for breakfast that day. But IMO, there’s a point where some details stop mattering. As long as the intent of the performer is correct, that’s all that’s going to register to someone listening.

But please, if you can explain to me what about Eddie’s technique or note choice is being so wildly misrepresented I’m all ears. I admit I have a mostly surface level understanding of Eddie’s playing but I’ve learned to recognize his licks and tendencies and I’m still seeing guys like Tom and Ben Eller (another YouTuber I’ve gotten Van Halen stuff from) demonstrate the hammers from nowhere, the five note patterns etc.

Of course, there’s degrees of this. Andy James teaching Rising Force using two handed tapping is actually “wildly inaccurate” to the point where I’d say it’s BS to charge money for it. Getting the right notes, right techniques, and right intent but maybe missing some flub or muted note or whatever on the recording is still a damn good transcription.

The players I know really well to the point where I feel confident to nit pick someone else’s transcriptions are Yngwie and Marty, and even Marty I’m not 100% sure exactly how he picks some stuff (he does occasionally fight against his USX set up in ways I’m not completely sure what he’s doing). I can recognize some small bits of fingerings or pick direction that Ben Eller got wrong in his Tornado of Souls transcription, but overall it’s pretty damn good and still applaud Ben for his efforts, and I wouldn’t scoff at him charging money for it, because I can tell from his presentation that his efforts are genuine.

It sounds to me like you might have a bit of a chip on your shoulder against these guys that have presented their material in a compelling and easy to understand fashion with nice production quality, performance execution, and charismatic delivery (and take it from someone who is a professional guitar teacher of 20+ years, that last detail matters). Nothing stopping you from doing the same, though!

1 Like
#9

Interesting turn this has taken. lol

For myself, the most important aspects of a transcription are pitches and rhythms, followed by the technique used to execute them. As an example, I recently had to transcribe the solo to the MCR song Thanks for the Venom for a student… as a potential time-saver, the first thing I always do is give the internet a quick check. Every single playthrough vid and tab I found had the solo’s intro arpeggio totally wrong - everyone tapped it, when it’s obvious from watching any live performance from the band that it ain’t tapped. lol So this is the spread of misinformation/laziness at work. And it is annoying, I get it, and I consider this a pretty big error.

With the Van Halen stuff, I also understand the desire to really nail every last minute detail, it is like capturing history in a way, true documentation, but this personally moves beyond the realm of importance to me and is not what I think should be a high priority for a student.

And to tie this back to Andy James, yeah, his old “in the style of” videos are very much just how he would play such-and-such - his technique is nothing like Yngwie’s, for example.

3 Likes
#10

There are definitely two schools of thought to what an “accurate” transcription is, and I am firmly of the belief that one must incorporate intent when transcribing a performance. For example, let’s say I was tabbing a solo where someone played the Yngwie 6 note pattern, but maybe their hand sync was off a little and they rushed the beat and actually came in a 32nd note ahead of the beat. So what is actually heard is this:

E|-13-|-10-12-13-13-10-13-10-12-13-12-10

But wouldn’t it make more sense to transcribe it as we can surmise through prior knowledge of how things are typically played as:

E|-13-10-12-13-12-10-13-10-12-13-12-10

As this is more accurate to what the performer was most likely going for.

Also the former example is actually harder and more awkward to replicate than the intended line. So I actually find transcriptions that take intent into account as way more useful and educational than a precise notation of sloppy or for more precise players a “rough around the edges” improvised performance. It is also way more akin to a classical music score demonstrating what the musician is supposed to perform.

1 Like
#11

Hey all,
moved here for obvious reasons. I know that these topics can be quite emotional but let’s keep being nice to each other even if we disagree on which fret number on which string Eddie played :smiley:

3 Likes
#12

I remember when I was in my teens I’d buy tab books to learn songs and solos. This is all way before the internet was a thing in my house.

I would agonise about playing the tab exactly as written. This was absolutely the worst thing I could have done. It became obsession and in the end I could never play it.

If things weren’t written with so much detail, I’d likely have been able to play and enjoy :man_facepalming::sweat_smile:. Just my 2 cents

2 Likes
#13

Just on the subject of accuracy:

I have been transcribing for a very long time, and I have been offered transcription jobs by some notable folks (I have turned them down because it’s just not a gig I want, but I’ll stay on topic.) I’m just saying this to provide some context that it’s an area where I feel confident that I have some significant skill.

The longer I’m “in the game” the more I realize that I can’t ever be 100% confident in my own interpretation. #1 reason is: my ears could always be better, #2 reason is, I could always have more data. I feel confident in my lack of confidence in part because of the simple fact that I can often review transcriptions I have done in the past and find errors - things I couldn’t hear then but I can hear now. Another simple truth is that when there are lots of subtleties involved, I know could listen to the same measure an infinite number of times and find new details each time. (And/or - look for more live footage of the artist playing the piece, or use more EQ tools, or watch/listen to more material from the artist to see their fingering preferences in other pieces, yadda yadda on and on)

I used to be furious with online tabs/transcriptions I’d see and all their errors and weird fingerings. Now I don’t get quite as bent out of shape about it, because I think usually folks really are just doing their best…folks have to be practical about how much time (and blood, sweat, and tears) they are going to put into a single transcription before sharing it as “content” and if they didn’t at some point accept that it may be “good enough” then nobody would ever share any transcriptions (which maybe would not be such a bad thing, but that’s another topic…)

Similarly everybody’s ears are limited, including mine; just as I might feel 100% certain I have the notes correct, someone with better ears (and/or who has listened to the piece more times than I have) might be able to correct me, a transcription we see online might have really been created and shared in good faith with good effort, the author just not hearing the mistakes they weren’t able to hear.

Transcriptions should always be understood to be “hey here’s what I think it is” and the onus is on the student/consumer to supplement the transcription with their own ears and study.

I understand the passion for accuracy, but I think rather than “correct” vs “incorrect” we really just have a matter of degrees.

On the matter of monetized content, the rush for profit (or more generously, the need for income) has significant negative affects in probably all industries, but the arts and arts education for sure. The consumer suffers and so do the creators. I don’t usually fault youtube guitar personalities for trying to make a buck, and unfortunately they usually need to have bold approaches or their content gets buried.

Slightly OT, personal opinion: I think actually learning musical skills from transcriptions should be reserved for beginners and light hobbyists, at least in terms of most guitar music. In most other contexts, it’s better to try and figuring it out by ear, and just keep strengthening those ears…I guess another exception is if you have to learn a bunch of solos and such for an upcoming gig…

2 Likes
#14

I agree with nearly everything you’ve said here.

People often assume that I’m saying that my Van Halen transcriptions are 100% accurate out of my own hubris and nothing else. What I actually say (which is different than what people hear) is that mine are the most accurate transcriptions currently available with all currently available evidence. I am completely aware that I can be mistaken on any number of things. This is why I have several partners who proofread and edit my work…if I only served as my own counsel, the work would be significantly flawed and much lesser quality. I take a significant amount of time and effort (six years in the case of one piece) and once again, it isn’t an individual effort.

I couldn’t disagree more about the value of studying recordings as note-for-note correctly as possible. If you are strictly talking about teaching students so that they can maximize their income and employability as a professional guitar player, yes you have a point. By that rationale, no one should study anything on a specific note-for-note level and concentrate on learning their fretboard and music theory and standard notation and multiple instruments and improvisation skills. These are the skills that one could turn into money.

But I simply follow what my favorite players did…and in most cases, especially in the case of Edward Van Halen, they worked especially hard at studying recordings of their heroes as note-for-note correctly as possible. It worked for them and who am I to say that their approach to learning isn’t valid? Would it get them a job playing praise music at the local rock church? No, not likely. Would it help them get into Julliard and eventually play in a Broadway ensemble or on awards shows? No, it would not.

If studying and transcribing things note-for-note isn’t worthwhile, I wonder why anyone attempts to do it? What good is it? That’s up for debate I suppose. That could go into a broader discussion about why anyone would ever play anything that sounds anything like any other music that has ever existed.

I basically work hard at notating things as accurately as possible with all currently available evidence and I constantly update and re-evaluate my transcriptions regularly, especially as new information becomes available. I do this for posterity and to represent the truth of what an artist actually played…not what I guess he played. And I constantly go back and revise and consult several other people who are way above my skill level to help me check, re-check, proofread and ultimately correct all my transcriptions as new evidence becomes available. It is an ongoing process for sure. I simply reach a temporary stopping point with my transcriptions at which point several other people have been consulted and all then currently available evidence is considered thoroughly…and then I’ll pick it up again and correct things if and when new evidence becomes available. I’m never above learning from others and I’m never above being corrected with solid evidence. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

For example, my research uncovered the fact that EVH used his vintage Flying V to record all the guitar tracks on “Jump”. I discovered this in the course of transcribing those guitar parts. Does this information help my students get a paying job as a guitarist? No.

But does learning the details of how a piece was actually played by an artist help my students understand something they didn’t understand before? Even though it won’t necessarily make them more employable as a professional guitar player, it does teach them something they didn’t know before, and that is valuable to me and my students tell me it is valuable to them. And it has nothing to do with money.

I personally think that actual note-for-note study and transcription helps anyone appreciate what their favorite artist created on a deeper level than is otherwise possible with only a cursory examination with little to no effort involved. Even if it did nothing else but help you appreciate the music you love even more, I think that is valuable enough. Even if you never play that music publicly. It is just about learning for the sake of learning and I just can’t see why that is not worthwhile. I know one can approach music study in only one traditionally accepted way…and that is geared toward pursuing absolutely pure originality and pure improvisation couched in studying music theory and standard notation above all other concerns. Though that is a valid method, it isn’t the method my heroes chose and isn’t the method I choose.

#15

Let’s say for example that you wanted to learn the Hendrix and/or SRV version of “Voodoo Child (Slight Return)” and you happened upon an online lesson with excellent recreations of the studio guitar sounds and perfect camera angles. This person claims they are showing you how it was played on the record. But this person is teaching you to play it on a standard tuned guitar in first position F with no open strings involved instead of half-step down in E position as it was actually played by Hendrix and Vaughan. And let‘s say you paid this guy $100 for such lessons. Wouldn’t you feel cheated? Ripped off? Bamboozled? I certainly would.

#16

Did anyone else have a transcription book for Dream Theater’s Awake back in the '90s? Not sure if it was ever fixed, but it was FULL of egregious errors, despite the claim that JP himself edited it. Pretty confusing to my teen self. haha

1 Like
#17

Yes in that case I wouldn’t be too happy for sure.

#18

I couldn’t disagree more about the value of studying recordings as note-for-note correctly as possible.

I should clarify - I think it’s incredibly valuable to study recordings note for note as correctly as possibly. I think it’s much less valuable to look at the transcription that someone else did where they did all of that work. I think the act of transcribing is incredibly valuable to the person transcribing, while studying other people’s transcriptions is a very different activity.

I think most of the rest of your post was responding to the idea that deep study of a recording isn’t useful, and I apologize for that misunderstanding. I definitely agree that there’s immense value in deep study of a recording, or even a short passage.

As for specifically studying someone else’s transcription, I think it’s fun, it can be insightful and interesting. I agree about appreciating the artistry. There’s absolutely value, especially for people who like playing covers.

My main gripe is that I think a lot of guitarists in the modern era tend to rely too much on other people’s transcriptions rather than learning how to figure things out themselves. There’s value in working with someone else’s transcription, but for folks who want to be able to improvise and create their own music, I think there’s about 100x more value in learning how to transcribe/use one’s ears to decipher what’s going on.

For people who just want to play for fun, copy the music of their favorite artists, but don’t have any serious aspirations about improving their improvisation, composition, creativity, etc, working with someone else’s transcription is great! I don’t look down on this, I think playing for fun, playing covers, it’s all good, people should do what they enjoy.

Similarly, for people who do have these more “serious” aspirations, I think other people’s transcriptions can at times be a nice assistive resource while they are simultaneously putting in the work to improve their own ears.

1 Like
#19

Scanning the discussion: one (not particularly original or clever) thing I’ll say is that we can all have different musical goals, and we are free to give them as much value as we want.

For example, in the past I also cared a lot about trying to do note-for-note transcriptions. Because I’m an idiot, I chose to do it with Vinnie Moore solos. I think my success rate with that was zero, lol, but that’s besides the point. In short: note-for-note transcription was a valuable goal for me. So, in that phase, I would also have been extremely annoyed if I bought an “approximate-but-not-quite-exact” tablature or lesson.

Nowadays, this kind of “exactness” is less important to me. I’m more focused on creating my own music, inspired in part by my many inaccurate transcriptions :smiley: In this phase, even an approximate transcription would be valuable to me because I’m more interested in the overall sound / contour / implied harmony of a line than its detailed execution. Even if I knew the exact line I would probably still modify /create variations of it to better suit my musical goals and technical preferences.

#20

Ok…

Let me respond to each of your statements in order:

BlackInMind:“Honestly, comparing your Jump transcription to Tom’s tutorial, the differences are so small that one could still use Tom’s tutorial to execute the solo in front of an audience and everyone would hear it and say it was played accurately.”

Tom claims that his “Jump” solo tutorial is accurate to what Edward played on the album version of the song. I have demonstrated that this is not true. Tom did not claim that his tutorial is “accurate enough to execute the solo in front of an audience and everyone would hear it was played accurately”. He claimed that his tutorial was accurate. Not “accurate enough to fool the average drunk audience member” who would have no idea whether it was played accurately or not. This statement is one that I hear VERY often as an excuse for not learning how to play something correctly. Anyone can work JUST hard enough to half-ass anything that they intend to play in front of an audience that is likely drunk and would believe that anythng they heard was identical to the record. If that is your yardstick for learning from recordings, that is certainly your right. But again, that is not what Tom claimed…he claimed that his lesson is accurate. At no point did he say the truth. I posted the truth of his lesson in the comments section of his “Jump” tutorial which is as follows:

“AllenGarberGuitarFun: To be clear…this is NOT how the guitar parts on “Jump” were played on the album version. This tuning and this arrangement that Tom is demonstarting is an amalgamation of general quotes from the album version and a general arrangement for that tuning that Eddie used when he played “Jump” live in the late 90s and on the Sammy and Roth reunion tours in the 2000’s. It is not possible to play the guitar parts of “Jump” correctly if you do not tune to the correct tuning from the album that Tom described at the 0:50 mark which I taught him. There are open string notes involved in this solo that cannot be replicated in the workaround tuning that Tom is using in this video.”

BlackInMind: “I get that you aren’t considering it a truly accurate transcription unless it’s noted what Eddie ate for breakfast that day. But IMO, there’s a point where some details stop mattering. As long as the intent of the performer is correct, that’s all that’s going to register to someone listening.”

See my above points…I’m not noting “what Eddie ate for breakfast that day”, I notate what he actually played according to all available evidence. There is a difference. You have made your opinion clear…that you don’t value note-for-note transcriptions in general whether it is from me or anyone else. Your yardstick for how hard one should work to learn anything is apparently JUST ENOUGH to fool a room full of drunk people despite knowing that you aren’t anywhere near what was actually being played on the recording. And that’s fine. There are fake books and easy arrangements that many people use on a very surface level that leaves the player to rely on jazz improvisation skills to fill in the blanks and play a completely off the dome thing that may or may not have anything to do with the actual recording. That’s great for you personally. I wouldn’t dream of telling you that your chosen method for learning a song or a solo from a recording is somehow a character flaw on your part. You do you. You have chosen to ridicule me because I have a different standard than you. I’m not sure why you felt it necessary to do that. I guess your standard is also that as long as the performer who is playing the part in front of an audience INTENDS to play it accurately, then it is accurate enough for you and an audience in various states of sobriety? I’m not sure why you went down the path of performing these parts for an audience, because I never mentioned that and neither did Tom. Tom claimed he was teaching the “Jump” solo accurately and I am only demonstrating that he is not.

In fact, EVERY NOTE in Tom’s transcription is completely inaccurate to the album version because he is playing it in the wrong positions. This is entirely owing to the fact that he is in the wrong tuning. If you have been playing for as long as you say you have and you have been giving lessons for as long as you say you have, then you should understand this. I’m 52 and I’ve been playing for 44 years and I’ve been giving lessons for 35 years. You have set your bar for accuracy at the level you chose and I have set mine at a different level. I’m not sure why you can’t just let that go without the personal attacks.

BlackInMind: “But please, if you can explain to me what about Eddie’s technique or note choice is being so wildly misrepresented I’m all ears. I ADMIT I HAVE A MOSTLY SURFACE LEVEL UNDERSTANDING OF EDDIE’S PLAYING, but I’ve learned to recognize his licks and tendencies and I’m still seeing guys like Tom and Ben Eller (another YouTuber I’ve gotten Van Halen stuff from) demonstrate the hammers from nowhere, the five note patterns etc.”

This statement says it all. With this statement, you are saying that you don’t care about learning Van Halen’s guitar parts on anything but a surface level and as such you are in no position to make any authoritative statements on what is and what is not accurate when it comes to Van Halen transcriptions. Yoiu also have made it clear that you can’t understand why anyone would ever want to learn ANYTHING beyond a “mostly surface level”. You don’t value note-for-note accuracy (as close to note-for-note as is currently possible with all available evidence) and you have made it clear that you think that no one values it…not the player that is studying the material (whether they ever play the material in front of an audience or not) or any audience that might be within earshot of the player who might execute the material live. I never spoke about playing the material in front of an audience, so I don’t really know why you brought that up…again, apparently the least amount of work that you can do to execute something in front an audience is the best thing for all performers to do. I don’t agree with that, but you are perfectly entitled to believe that.

I can make comparison TABs that show the exact differences in what Tom is teaching and my transcription…I can modulate Tom’s TAB down to the correct fingering position that it should be in if he chose to use the correct tuning, and I can show you exactly what he’s missing, but you don’t really care about that. You don’t seem to care about note-for-note accuracy…or do you? You claim that you think that Tom’s lessons are “the most accurate out there”, but then in the same breath you say that transcribing and studying things on a note-for-note accurate level doesn’t matter in general because the audience won’t be able to tell the difference. It seems like you are saying two things that ae completely the opposite of each other. For the record, Ben is quite lost on most of his Van Halen videos. He falls prey to a lot of guesswork without really studing the available evidence. This is the common thing that I find in most online lessons and demos.

BlackInMind: “Of course, there’s degrees of this.”

Yes. You seem to have a different standard for learning Van Halen than you do for learning Yngwie and Marty.

BlackInMind: “Andy James teaching Rising Force using two handed tapping is actually “wildly inaccurate” to the point where I’d say it’s BS to charge money for it. Getting the right notes, right techniques, and right intent but maybe missing some flub or muted note or whatever on the recording is still a damn good transcription.”

Again, you have a different idea of teaching and learning than others do. Tom doesn’t “get the right notes, right techniques and right INTENT”. I completely understand what it means to transcribe something that isn’t accurate to what was actually executed on the recording…but that is for a seperate discussion and not in an attempt at note-for-note transcription. Again, it is fine that you don’t value note-for-note transcriptions for Van Halen particularly or you have a “close-enough” attitude about transcribing in general. If this is so, then I wonder why you are on this site? Is Cracking the Code about guesswork? Is it about “close enough”? From what I’ve seen here, this is not the case.

BlackInMind: “It sounds to me like you might have a bit of a chip on your shoulder against these guys that have presented their material in a compelling and easy to understand fashion with nice production quality, performance execution, and charismatic delivery (and take it from someone who is a professional guitar teacher of 20+ years, that last detail matters). Nothing stopping you from doing the same, though!”

And here’s where your intent is clearest. You stoop to insulting me.

Look, I focus 100% on the actual playing, the actual music, the actual content. I create unambiguous thoroughly researched transcriptiions and I create videos that are not performances that are about “charismatic delivery”. I’ve taught guitar lessons for 30 plus years and I can tell you that in my experience, that last detail DOES NOT MATTER. I’m not putting on an act for my students or for anyone that happens to see my demonstration or lesson videos. Your assertion that I am somehow jealous of Tom’s “compelling and easy to understand fashion” and "nice production quality, performance execution and (especially) charismatic delivery is just flat out wrong. I’ve found all of those things to be a hinderance to learning the actually accurate content. But you do you. I’m not here to insult you as you are doing to me.

I’m making the statement that Tom’s videos are not accurate and I do believe it is not cool to represent them as such and to charge money for it is not cool. It would be one thing if he said the truth as a disclaimer on his videos which could go something like “I’ve only been studying Van Halen for about three years and here is my guess as to what he might have played. I haven’t really done any due dilligence on this material, but give me money for these lesson videos because I have high production values. The content isn’t accurate, but trust me it is accurate becasue I say it is. Now give me money”. You are entitled to your opinion and so am I. And, once again…let me state for the record that I have communicated with Tom many times abiout this personally and he knows that what I’m saying is true.

In the end, I believe that one positive method of learning from recordings that I have found useful for myself and my students is to start by learning something you love as accurately as possible. THEN, decide where you would like to proceed from there…maybe you can put your own spin on it, maybe you can vary it slightly, maybe you can simply play it as accurately as possible, maybe play it in a different style, maybe try various combinations of ways of playing it…at least you have the solid foundation of knowing how something was ACTUALLY played to the best of your knowledge from all currently available evidence. This isn’t the only method of learning from recordings I’m simply saying that I have found this method to be beneficial. It seems like an obvious place to start. I’m sure it is also perfectly valid to AVOID learning what was actually played on a recording…