Hi martingoodson,
now I took my time to transcribe the first page of the solo myself. I checked repeatedly, and this is what I found to the best of my ability:
![FA-Mi Congo.jpg (170.56 KiB) Viewed 6616 times FA-Mi Congo.jpg](./download/file.php?id=14293&t=1&sid=0fdfddfdebcdf56c464d8ebae5866d9c)
- Francisco Aguabella: Mi Congo (1st. page)
I couldn't manage to notate laid-back swing off-beats in measures 4, 6 and 8 in triplet form, and maybe I shouldn't. This is a ritardando feel typical of bonkó style, and you have to interpret that accordingly. The two strokes in the transition from measures 3 to 4, 5 to 6 and 7 to 8 are a rhythmic approximation; the timing of the respective second notes, or the first ones in each of the bars 4, 6 and 8, rather coincide with the first notes (of the measure) of my "contratiempo triplet" notation.
In measure 14, the last four open tone strokes are actually four eighth notes, which are typically interpreted with a feeling that I approximated by notating a triplet tied to two eighth notes. As this is not exact, anyway, I should perhaps have written it like four regular eighths.
I used to be pretty categorical in insisting on rather imitating what is heard aurally, as opposed to transcribing solos. However, as percussion students in the jazz field resort to transcribing on a regular basis, at some point I started doing it, too, and I would encourage my students to do the same - BUT: In Afro-Cuban music, the range of unnotatable rhythmic manners is much wider than in jazz. So it is inevitable to find compromises in notating and, vice versa, to interpret the transcription according to the source, not to the written page.
Let me recommend you not to search for scientific or mathematical truth in music. Triplet notation in jazz is not accurate, it is nothing but the closest approximation. In the same way, be careful with using the words correct and incorrect. For example, do you think that what comes measurably closest in retrospective analysis is necessarily correct? I don't. I know the style, and I try to depict what may have been
musically intended. So even if you find that bars 5 and 7 of the original congachops transcription sound the closest to straight half-note triplets, they may rather be laid-back displaced (syncopated) triplets. I have listened to these passages over and over, and had to come to the decision to notate these bars the way I did - although I had been puzzled, too.
I did not continue to transcibe the solo, because with my notating program it would have been too difficult to notate the muffled-stroke triplet correctly. These are exactly the contratiempo triplets that I had tried to explain.
I apologize for any possible mistakes that I may have made; if you or anybody else has a better ear, or more practice in transcribing, go ahead and let me/us know. In my first post I forgot the ties in my "displaced quarter-note triplet", now edited. Also, I used a wrong english word for "approximate", also edited now.
If you want to upload an attachment, you find the button below your text field, next to "Options".
Best,
Thomas