Thanks very much for clarifying…I totally misunderstood you!
I learned an awful lot about what NOT to do and about what things are often incorrectly assumed from studying all available transcriptions. These very error filled and most often wrong transcriptions were what inspired me to transcribe myself as accurately as possible using all available evidence (including all previously attempted transcriptions) and constantly re-examining my own work over the span of years and even decades along with getting several smart and fresh eyeballs on my transcriptions to make theme the most accurate that they can be. EVERYONE’S ears are fallible, and I seek out as many bright people as I can help check and revise my work. And when I come to a stopping point on a piece, I present it with the idea that my students or indeed anyone that might encounter my transcriptions to use it as a steppingstone so that they might examine things in further detail themselves as they develop their ears as I have and as I continue to do. I do agree that many guitarists in the 80s and onwards didn’t and don’t take that next step to continue learning to figure things out for themselves. This is also another reason why I feel it is incumbent on me to try to get the most accurate information out there about EVH’s playing specifically (and some other artists that I study intently). I want to help others really get what was played as specifically and unambiguously as possible, again based on all available evidence. I just think it helps the learning process, and it helps form a deeper appreciation of the music than is possible with only surface level transcriptions and lessons based on nothing but guesswork rather than relying on solid evidence.
There are a lot of people who agree with me on this. Many more of these people exist than naysayers might want to believe.
What an interesting thread! I personally usually do my own transcriptions of anything that I play - any “lessons” or courses are rarely on any player’s “style”, but more specific to a technical thing that I am having troubles with. Tablature hurts my brain, so I prefer to see things in notation. I find that the act of “writing things down” really helps burn a thing into one’s DNA. That’s just me, though. I find you can really hear things like what strings things are being played on, etc if you give a tune enough listens!
Anyways, I think it’s absolutely great that you would take the time to really scrub a player’s style so as to capture the exact nuances! Kudos! Best practice that one can do for music is transcription, in my opinion!
[quote=“garbeaj, post:20, topic:83119, full:true”]
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.”[/quote]
So aside from the tuning not being in F standard (lets just say exactly F standard for right now, because if I tried to play it as a slightly out of tune F standard with a band they’d tell me I was out of tune and to tune up), where are the phrases from Tom’s tutorial off by not using open strings in F standard? I’m genuinely and honestly curious here, I’m not trying to be confrontational.
I never said I didn’t value accurate transcriptions. What I said is that there is a degree to where streamlining aspects of the notation of a performance makes the actual part easier to learn.
Again, in my example I posted in my last comment with the Yngwie sixes lick, it makes learning the lick more awkward if I transcribed it exactly as I heard it with out of sync hands and a rushed starting note, because if it was a classical piece that was written to start on the beat with even in sync sextuplets, that would be the intention of the composer. So if I decided to transcribe a given recorded performance of that piece where the performer was out of sync and rushed the parts, it would actually not be what the composer intended. You mentioned jazz performers, this is a topic I’ve discussed with a friend of mine that runs a very successful online school that specializes in gypsy jazz, and he was the one who tipped me off to this idea of trying to assume the intent of the line when transcribing a performance.
I feel that for someone who is trying to replicate the performance of “Jump” in this case, Tom’s tutorial is pretty accurate. The tapping lick is there, the pinch harmonics and articulations are there, the hammer on lick at the end is there. The notes are correct. I don’t understand why it is considered “completely wrong” that he didn’t play it on a slightly out of tune F standard guitar? If you follow that train of logic, he should have grown a 2nd pair of arms so he could have the tapping lick enter slightly overlapping the previous lick, since Eddie didn’t play the whole solo in one take and there is an overlap on the recording from where he punched the tapping lick in.
You say him playing it in standard means every note is wrong, but the pitches are accurate. The fingerings are even accurate. I would actually understand the argument more if his fingerings were totally off, but they aren’t. You said it yourself that this is how Eddie would play it live with Hagar. The reason I got a little confrontational in my responses is that you are coming off incredibly arrogant against literally every other tutorial that attempts to show Van Halen parts. Again, I noticed Ben’s Tornado of Souls tutorial missed a fingering and missed some of the pick direction, but I’m not going to go post on his video that his tutorial is garbage because of that and that he’s ripping off his patreon supporters or something. His tutorial is incredibly helpful and otherwise super accurate. I’m not going to try to knock him down a peg on his own video’s comment section because of some relatively small inconsistencies. But “you do you” right?
You are entirely right in that I’m no Van Halen expert. I have a decent understanding of how he does some of his signature licks and patterns, to the point where I can hear when he’s doing what, but I never did an extreme deep dive into his music. That being said, guys like Tom and Ben have demonstrated these parts in a way to their viewers that are extremely helpful, especially when it comes to getting down things like the hammer on from nowhere techniques in his fast pentatonic playing that, for me, were a huge lightbulb moment in learning to execute those types of passages (in EVH’s songs or elsewhere).
My point is that transcriptions that are 90% accurate are still pretty damn accurate, especially if the last 10% can be on the inconsequential side (accidentally clipped open strings or notating when a performer is rushing or dragging). I believe Tom and Ben’s tutorials are at least 90% there, if not more. And if someone gets 99% to 100%, even better, but I’m still not going to trash them on their YouTube channel. You mentioned that Tom refuses to go back and edit his videos. I don’t blame him. For videos that are as high quality and have as nice a production quality as Tom’s or Ben’s, it takes a LOT of work to go back and fix any of that. This is why you see Ben opt to make a brand new video with “updates” that effectively replaces his old content. But he doesn’t do that often, because its a huge task, and his time is probably better spent making new content than fixing old content.
[quote=“garbeaj, post:20, topic:83119, full:true”]
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.[/quote]
Please! do share your tab for Jump in comparison! I’d really like to see exactly how off you say the phrases are. Again you assume I don’t value accurate transcriptions, but I do. The disagreement is that I think its super arrogant to claim Tom is trying to scam people for money, while the main gripe you seem to have is the guitar isn’t tuned up to a slightly out of tune F.
[quote=“garbeaj, post:20, topic:83119, full:true”]
Yes. You seem to have a different standard for learning Van Halen than you do for learning Yngwie and Marty.[/quote]
No, I just don’t agree with trashing other instructors who are putting a ton of effort into their product over very small details.
[quote=“garbeaj, post:20, topic:83119, full:true”]
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. [/quote]
Because I do value accuracy, but you’ve yet to show why Tom isn’t showing the correct notes, techniques, or intent besides just saying that, and citing things that I personally feel are inconsequential, like that he played the solo on a flying V and that he demonstrated the Jump solo in standard tuning, which Eddie himself did live anyway.
[quote=“garbeaj, post:20, topic:83119, full:true”]
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. [/quote]
If production quality doesn’t matter, then why do online tutors spend so much money upping their production game? I can’t imagine how much time, effort, and spending goes into the content Troy produces for CtC. I can 100% guarantee you his teaching would be much less effective if he just recorded everything in his bedroom on an iphone.
[quote=“garbeaj, post:20, topic:83119, full:true”]
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.[/quote]
I can only counter this by what I said about the effort it goes into producing high quality video lessons as to why you don’t see instructors go back and edit them as soon as some dude on the internet tells them they’re wrong. Even if Tom does acknowledge what you’re saying, do you really expect him to edit his content because of it? And stop selling his product because someone disagrees with his transcriptions?
Well at least we can both agree on something that in the end, the best thing for anyone to do is to just use their ears and use their own judgement on what they’re hearing.
I get that you don’t understand that being 90% right is as good as being 100% wrong. 10% matters. It is note-for-note study and if 10% of the notes are wrong, the whole thing is wrong by a mile. But that just demonstrates that you don’t approve of note-for-note study, despite what you are trying to say that is counter to that.
I also get that you think it is fine to sell a “product” that isn’t what it claims to be as long as the video and audio production values are high. I don’t understand that. I never will. The accuracy of the content is what matters, not any of the window dressing. I don’t understand why that’s so hard for you to comprehend.
I apologize because I thought I had already shared my transcription of the guitar parts on “Jump” to you…here it is:
So look CLOSELY at why things that you completely dismiss matter. The correct tuning matters…LOOK at the rhythm guitar chords under the keyboard solo. These have never been transcribed through officially licensed material before or-to the best of my knowledge and searching high and low-any unofficial demos or lessons online for the better part of the roughly six months it took me to reach a stopping point on this transcription. Those chords are simply not playable in any other tuning. There was one official transcription that was published in 2007 that caught the basic 1/2 step up tuning (though again, it is about an additional 1/4 step up from that) but as with all other previous transcriptions, they chose to notate all of these chords as power chords. They did a “pretty good” job of playing the solo in the correct positions, but there were several articulations that they missed. These are things that you think don’t matter. But they DO matter when you are teaching, learning and transcribing things on a note-for-note basis. It isn’t about shrugging your shoulders and saying “No one in the audience can tell the difference, so why bother learning it?”.
Look closely at the open strings present in the solo…these are CRUCIAL to the solo. And again-though I shouldn’t have to explain this to you-these open strings MATTER to the overall solo as Edward played it. And these open strings are only playable in the correct tuning.
Then you would say “It doesn’t matter if you aren’t tuned the extra 1/4 of a step above F sharp tuning!” But if you are learning from a recording, being in tune with that recording MATTERS. Especially when you are playing along with the record and trying to hit those correct target pitches in the bending portions. That goes for beginners and experienced guitarists alike who want to learn from Edward. This is so obvious that I can’t believe I have to say it.
Another part of why the tuning matters is to do with the fret positions you play the notes on. The tension of the strings is different as you go lower on the neck. The three-notes per string patterns that close out the solo (which is kicked off with an open G string…) are played HIGHER on the fingerboard, thus making the final 1/2 step trill much more difficult to articulate because the frets are more crowded the higher up you go. It seems pretty obvious that Edward forgoes playing that trill as he played it on the album by either flubbing it or picking it when he played it live with Gary Cherone and on the Roth reunion tours. (He rarely played that song with Hagar on vocals).
Also, you discounted my discovery that the guitar parts were played on a vintage Flying V, but it matters. The Gibson scale length and the lack of a vibrato, especially a locking vibrato, makes the piece easier to play and it makes the extra high tuning much easier to achieve. You should note that Edward plays the solo in the correct positions that reflect the F tuning in the video…even though he was miming in the video using his well known Frankenstein strat-style guitar with a Floyd Rose at that point. So it doesn’t matter to you that he played it on a Flying V. But there are things that you can learn by knowing that which I just mentioned. There are many others that appreciate learning things on this level of detail. Whether you personally consider it useless information is of no consequence to me and others that appreciate learning these things.
Also, be sure to take a look at the behind the bridge rake that I notated in Bar 64 during the rhythm guitar part under the keyboard solo. You’ll no doubt find that to be a totally pointless exercise. But it was on the record and so I notated it to the best of my ability. This rake was the clue that I found which proved conclusively that the Flying V was used. That was how my name got published in the May 2024 issue of Guitar World in the article on the making of the ‘1984’ album by my friend writer Chris Gill.
You can also look in the February 2021 issue of Guitar World for my “Eruption” transcription which was loaded with these details that you don’t personally care for…things like exactly how the Univox EC-80 A echo unit was used for the octave dive at the end of the piece which had never been discovered before, or the very first repeated lick which Troy pointed out to me when me and my fellow transcribers and editors were lost…he provided key information for which I’m eternally grateful. These details don’t matter to you, but they matter to me and many others.
I’m prefacing my reply by saying I’m tapping out (no pun intended) of this discussion after this, because it’s clear we both have hills to die on in this matter and neither of us is convincing the other. However, I do want to address some points you’ve made, as my closing statement:
Rhythm parts. Yes, if you’re including that into the discussion, then it’s a much stronger argument, and one that I’d agree with, that the F tuning matters if Eddie played voicings that utilize open strings. The argument wasn’t over the rhythm guitar part, though. Tom’s video was the solo only, and that’s what I’m commenting on.
It’s obvious you put a lot of time and care into your notation. But looking at the tab for the solo, the only open strings I see are the one just prior to the slide up after the tapping lick, and two ghost notes before the Am arpeggio up to the hammer on run.
My argument is this: does a quick open string sound before a slide into a lick, or two ghosted open strings constitute the intent of Eddie’s performance, or are they flubs that were left in the recording for any number of reasons (Eddie tracked off the cuff and thought it was fine, in the mix it doesn’t sound bad, etc).
Again, going back to my example of a classical performer playing a Bach piece. If Bach notated even, in time, in sync notes (the intent) and the performer rushed a note so it technically started a 32nd note prior to beat one and double bowed a note that wasn’t supposed to be, is the correct notation the score Bach wrote, or the transcription of what this given violinist performed?
Obviously in this case, Eddie is both the composer and the performer, and he did not notate the solo prior to performing it, so we can’t know 100% for sure what his intent was. However, I think going by other live renditions of the song one can surmise the intent that the performer is going for based on the elements they’re replicating night after night.
If Eddie was happy replicating the jump solo in standard tuning with the same licks minus the open strings you notated, one could assume these were not elements that mattered that much in the composition to the composer himself. He could have easily switched out for a F tuned guitar if he wanted, live.
And I’m aware many guitarists change how they perform things live for any number of reasons. To reference a guitarist I know well again, Marty Friedman, I know for a fact (because he’s stated as such in interviews) that he changes some parts of his solos live to make them easier so he can focus more on his stage performance. A very clear example is Tornado of Souls, where he avoids the super wide stretch in the 2 string arpeggio climax for inversions that are easier on the left hand, and then doesn’t play the following lick at all, opting to hold out a bent note.
So in my opinion, if someone were covering Tornado and chose to perform it with the alterations Marty himself makes, I’m not going to fault them for that, because the composer himself is demonstrating that as a viable alternative to the original recording in a way that still conveys the elements of his composition that he himself deems most important.
Look, I’m not saying you’re wrong or inaccurate. You’re incredibly accurate, obviously. My whole point is that I don’t think one needs to replicate everything down to the mistakes in a given performance (and at the end of the day, that is all the album recording is: one performance of a composition) in order to cover the composition itself in a way that adequately conveys the composition to a listener, or to pick up on Eddie’s vocabulary if one is interested in learning that (the camp I fall into in regards to EVH, for what it’s worth).
That’s like saying you can’t play the Master of Puppets solo properly if you can’t accidentally yank the high E string off the fretboard the way Kirk did, and Kirk himself admits it’s a mistake that was left in the recording that he can’t even duplicate himself.
If we were talking a lick like Thunderstruck that very obviously hits open strings as part of the intended composition that’s a different matter all together. I don’t care about open strings that are in a performance but are debatably unintended in the composition.
So if Tom is presenting the solo in a tuning that is more accessible for the typical guitarist wanting to learn the solo, and even bothers to mention the F tuning anyway, and he’s getting all the same licks minus the ghosted open string notes, what is the big problem with his tutorial? It’s not like he’s telling to you alternate pick the last run or insist the tapping lick is all wide form left hand legato. They’re the same damn licks.
I won’t even comment on the implication that it’s not accurate because he didn’t play it on a Flying V. So people wanting to learn to play Jump have to cash out for a V in order to learn it properly? I wish I had that kind of disposable income, but I don’t and I’m sure most guitarists watching Tom’s channel don’t either.
This whole thing started because I thought you were being really arrogant towards other guitar teachers that by all accounts are teaching the songs properly. I accused you of being salty towards them because that’s honestly how it comes off. And judging by the thread under your comment on Tom’s video that I found, I’m apparently not the only person out there who you’ve come off to in this way.
If your EVH tabs are the last and final word on Eddie’s material, and everyone else is a charlatan otherwise, please make and market your own instructional series on it. And I’m not being sarcastic, I’m serious. I’ll be one of the first to buy it, I promise. But if you’re going to just basically troll the instructors that are putting the time and effort into their product and you’re not willing/able/care enough to do the same, don’t be shocked when some people think you’re being arrogant over it.
In the end I see both sides. Your side values the transcription of a specific performance, I care more about transcribing the composition, which exists outside of a specific performance, like a classical score.
Before this goes any further, I’d invite everyone to reflect if we reached the point where every opinion has been stated multiple times, and we’re just repeating the same points over and over again! In that case it may be more productive to just call it a day.
PPS: I haven’t read every single reply in detail but I’m sure you all behaved well and didn’t degenerate into personal attacks and whatnot. Right? I’ll take a closer look later today.
BlackInMind: “3. So if Tom is presenting the solo in a tuning that is more accessible for the typical guitarist wanting to learn the solo, and even bothers to mention the F tuning anyway, and he’s getting all the same licks minus the ghosted open string notes, what is the big problem with his tutorial? It’s not like he’s telling to you alternate pick the last run or insist the tapping lick is all wide form left hand legato. They’re the same damn licks.”
This is the crux of the problem…Tom never said he was “presenting the solo in a tuning that is more accessible for the typical guitarist wanting to learn the solo”. Tom presents his solo lesson as being accurate to the record and it is not. And you are making a HUGE pre-judgement when you say that the tuning Tom uses in his video is “more accessible for the typical guitarist wanting to learn the solo”. In my opinion (and if you actually try to learn the solo in the correct tuning I’m pretty certain you’ll agree with the points I made earlier when faced with the physical reality of playing the solo in the correct tuning) it is actually EASIER to learn and play the solo in the correct tuning instead of the tuning that Tom used.
BlackInMind: “I won’t even comment on the implication that it’s not accurate because he didn’t play it on a Flying V. So people wanting to learn to play Jump have to cash out for a V in order to learn it properly? I wish I had that kind of disposable income, but I don’t and I’m sure most guitarists watching Tom’s channel don’t either.”
I never implied that Tom’s lesson video is “not accurate because he didn’t play it on a Flying V.” I was only responding to your dismissal of my discovery that it was played on the vintage Flying V. You said that discovery didn’t matter, and it matters.
You keep referring to playing things in front of an audience. I’m transcribing what happened on the record. That’s what notation and transcribing is for. I make transcriptions for those that really want to learn how Edward (or whatever artist I’m transcribing) played what he played and I’m also just putting down what he actually played to the best of my ability for posterity. Prior transcriptions of Edward’s playing have been woefully inadequate ever since the first attempts were made to transcribe his playing. This is a fact…and I get a HUGE response from many, many people around the world who have been hoping that someone would put forth the effort to accurately transcribe what Eddie actually played using all available evidence instead of guesswork. You seem to imply that my work is worthwhile to no one because it isn’t worthwhile to you. If that’s what you are saying, I’m here to tell you that many, many other people disagree with you.
Unless you title a transcription “Workaround live arrangement for the Jump solo” or you begin your lesson by saying “This lesson isn’t accurate to how this solo was played on the record”, you can’t make the claim that it is accurate. Tom claims that his transcriptions are accurate and they are not. I’ve seen far worse and I applaud his efforts. He’ll tell you that himself. Again, I am in regular communication with him. My comment on his “Jump” solo video was a statement of fact because he DIDN’T say that he was presenting the solo in a workaround arrangement for live performance. You seem to agree that what he presented is such an arrangement. So what is wrong with me pointing that out? It isn’t arrogance on my part, it is a statement of fact that even you agree with.
BlackInMind: “5. This whole thing started because I thought you were being really arrogant towards other guitar teachers that by all accounts are teaching the songs properly. I accused you of being salty towards them because that’s honestly how it comes off. And judging by the thread under your comment on Tom’s video that I found, I’m apparently not the only person out there who you’ve come off to in this way.”
I wasn’t “being really arrogant toward other guitar teachers that by all accounts are teaching the songs properly.” If you admit that you have a very surface level understanding of Edward’s playing, then you have absolutely no standing to judge whether ANY of the people you think are “teaching the songs properly” are actually teaching the songs “properly” or not. Do you see this?
And as far as how what I say “comes off” as being arrogant…that is not my concern. I do not care how I “come off”. That is in the minds of other people and you are engaging in trying to guess at “intent”. Guessing at intent is just a guess. It isn’t accurate to reality.
BlackInMind: “If your EVH tabs are the last and final word on Eddie’s material, and everyone else is a charlatan otherwise, please make and market your own instructional series on it. And I’m not being sarcastic, I’m serious. I’ll be one of the first to buy it, I promise. But if you’re going to just basically troll the instructors that are putting the time and effort into their product and you’re not willing/able/care enough to do the same, don’t be shocked when some people think you’re being arrogant over it.”
I never said that my “EVH tabs are the last and final word on Eddie’s material” and I never said or implied that “everyone else is a charlatan otherwise”. What I said was a statement of fact…that my transcriptions are the most accurate currently available transcriptions based on all currently available evidence, at least as far as I’m aware. I absolutely welcome and hope for someone to correct me with solid evidence ALWAYS. I ALWAYS leave open the possibility and probability that I am wrong or that I have missed something. That’s why I collaborate with many others toward the goal of transcribing Edward’s playing as accurately as possible with all currently available evidence. It isn’t about me or what I think. It is about what Edward played. Period. I’m notating this material for posterity if for nothing else. Edward’s playing is much more nuanced than nearly anyone knows…and the only way to see that nuance is to look deeper. That’s what I try to accomplish with my transcriptions…it isn’t so that someone can play the “Jump” solo in a workaround live arrangement that is only barely accurate enough to fool an audience of drunk middle aged bar patrons. I am trying to notate Edward’s true legacy…his playing as it actually existed. Not as someone guessed it existed or how they fantasized that it existed.
The part that you seem to have missed is that I probably won’t “make and market my own instruction series” on Edward’s playing. I already make lesson videos FOR FREE on my YouTube channel and I make my transcriptions at my own considerable expense FOR FREE. This is something that many find extremely threatening for some reason. I spend A LOT of money and time creating my transcriptions…I will transcribe for hire and I do have many students, but my ongoing work in transcribing Van Halen sometimes gets published as happened with my “Eruption” transcription in the February 2021 issue of Guitar World, but I did that FOR FREE. In fact, I had already posted a FREE pdf file of that transcription online well over a year before it got published.
I don’t have a monetary profit motive for my ongoing work in transcribing Van Halen music. I work at it for months and even years and I spend a considerable amount of my own money to pay professional engravers to create the final scores. And when I reach a stopping point on a transcription, I share it FOR FREE. I have some patrons who help with donations and I will transcribe for hire as I’ve said, but ultimately I lose a great deal of money on this. And I’m by no means a wealthy person.
I hope this makes sense to you because I’ve tried my best to help you understand what I’ve actually said and what I do and why I do it. You have made many incorrect assumptions about me and I hope you see me more clearly now.
You have to buy his course to find out. Cameron Cooper’s grasp of Van Halen is better than many, but he is still not note-for-note accurate in the demo videos that I’ve seen so far.
With that said, because I am probably one of the only people on that planet that invests the time and effort that is necessary to transcribe Van Halen music accurately, I regularly look at every lesson online and in print past and present and for any properly vetted information that I may have missed and I can honestly say that I’ve never seen a single fully accurate Van Halen lesson anywhere from anybody.
I recommend that you look at all available lessons as I do and study everything closely yourself to determine what PARTS each person gets right and which parts they get completely wrong based on the available audio/video/interview evidence. This is part of my process. Just know that you will be spending money that you can’t get back on material that is not accurate-in fact usually VERY inaccurate.
“If your EVH tabs are the last and final word on Eddie’s material, and everyone else is a charlatan otherwise, please make and market your own instructional series on it. And I’m not being sarcastic, I’m serious. I’ll be one of the first to buy it, I promise.”
You don’t need to pay a cent. I don’t do this for profit, I do it to share what I’ve learned from many others and most importantly from Edward himself. Here are some of my most recent completed comprehensive transcriptions:
“Jump” (previously shared above) *with special assistance from CTC Forum member and AMAZING transcriber JBakerman! Jump - Full Song.pdf - Google Drive
“Runnin’ With the Devil”, *again, with key insights from our own JBakerman!
The “Beat It” solo:
I keep working on every song in the catalog and some live versions and special material from bootlegs daily at my own considerable expense. And again, I only want to get the most accurate information out to anyone that wants it…FOR FREE.
Thanks! I purchased a few courses from the first link i posted… I found him to be very good for my purposes. Yes Cameron is very close, but even he admits that his stuff isn’t note for note… that’s not his intention. He strives for more of the “spirit of EVH”
I just want to say that I appreciate you, and your effort. You have done excellent work here!
I’ll take a closer look later today.