-
Originally Posted by fasstrack
John
-
08-29-2017 03:16 PM
-
I definitely have solo guitar things I've loosely arranged, but I basically never play an arrangement note for note the same way twice. I can't really imagine playing a fully worked out arrangement on a jazz gig, to be honest. I think the best way to improvise while playing solo is to vary the melody, so I try to have a bunch of different ways to play variations on the melody.
I definitely do have alternate sets of changes that I like to use, and I do spend time working those out in advance. Reharmonizing on the fly can also be fun, too.
-
I always feel guilty playing anything that's been "worked out" whether it's a lick, intro, ending or chord melody passage, but even the pros do it. I got a kick out of hearing Stan Getz play the same cliché ending that I had been working on...
-
Originally Posted by coolvinny
I think there's a difference between playing by rote - which is just music by numbers in my view - and repeating stuff where it's most effective. That's different.
If I can be personal for a moment, I think I'm almost incapable of repeating myself. My fingers/brain won't allow it. If I try it, because I think it sounds good, I sort of seize up and go blank. Seriously.
-
The players I like (admittedly, the range is stylistically narrow) have a lot of language and devices in common.
I believe that I memorised more language through passive listening to CTI during my disco years - and (later) to a certain strain of Blue Note - than through active listening to my heroes.
I'm OK with common language and devices showing up in improvising - it tells me I'm on the right track. Besides, 'to steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research'.
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
EDIT What I'm quite serious about is always having one's musical statements/utterances be in alignment with what one knows to be true.Last edited by destinytot; 08-30-2017 at 04:23 AM. Reason: Clarity
-
I now think of solo guitar a little differently when it comes to arrangements and improvisation. I used to think for it to be "jazz" it had to fit into the typical small group format of head, solos, then head again. Unrealistically narrow view, really. Playing chord melody, then improvising with chords, etc. seemed impossible by that definition.
Listening to some of the great solo jazz guitarists (like Joe Pass, Bucky Pizzarrelli, George Van Epps), part of what makes it jazz is the fills, acappella sections, flexible time/swinging, reharmonization. That is, even if they're only playing the melody or not playing a "solo" like a horn player, there's improvisation going on.
Figuring out and being able to play an arrangement, though, I think is the starting point.
-
Originally Posted by JGinNJ
-
In my view it can be very valuable to play a tune and not "improvise" at least in the conventional sense. Often we jazz guys can be guilty of fluffing our way thru a tune just to get to the improvising part. I remember hearing that the great piano player Jimmy Rowles would often sit at the piano and just play tunes for hours not "blowing " on them just playing the melody. of course you could also say he was still improvising since he probably wasn't playing fixed arrangements but rather spontaneously playing thru tunes he knew. I think in general the tune with its melody and harmony can never be given too much attention, I am a fan of the songs not just as vehicles for improvisation but as actual things of beauty that should be respected and revered. I always have a twinge of pain when I hear someone call them "real book tunes". So yes, I think playing just the tune beautifully with respect and care and not blowing can be very good for the soul.
all the best
Tim
-
Originally Posted by John A.
-
Originally Posted by TLerch
I've spoken often of Chris Anderson here, and his really freewheeling interpretation and reharmonizing of songs. But he had license b/c he knew every nuance of the song. He even sang on one record.
And, yeah, Rowles was a master of the ASB. Even Tommy Flanagan had to admit Jimmy Rowles knew more songs than he...
-
Not only that but I'd say the whole tune, melody and harmonies, dictated the improvisation. It's not just a matter of playing any old thing over some chord names once the head is out of the way.
-
I play a lot of classical music... and it's all learnt of course as it is written (or sight-read) - except minor melodic variations where the style allows to do it...
And I find it interesting because the music is very interesting usually already... it contains a lot of information in it to interprete.
I would say - you improvize in a way even if you do not change any note or rythm. There's a lot of things you can do without it...
As for jazz standards.... I just find it too boring to play it as totally pre-composed arrangement...
I remember as a kid I played a Blue Moon arrangement for classical guitar as a 'light' part of a program... and the teacher told me: stop swinging... stop bending... stop phrasing like this... etc. it's not jazz, it's an arrangement in classical style))) But it was too boring to play it as a classical piece.
Today I find that I even can't really repeat the arrangement... I learnt a few - it was Vince Lewis' version of My Romance... But at the end of the day it turns out that I can't repeat it exactly because it's like against natural expression...
Even just playing original melody note for note requires some liberties and variations to add expression to it...
Even when I feel I am struggling with improvizing I still try to find the way out this way - though maybe awkwardly at the moment... it's more inspiring.
- as a preliminary set-up I do sometimes something like playing chords with melody completely maybe in a few different ways without any variations... but I would not really call it an arrangement...
it's just the way to get comfortable with the song.. running through harmonic patterns... mapping it on the fretboard.
Sonny S. -- Les Paul Player
Today, 04:18 AM in The Players