-
Remember that article by Chick Corea that I pointed to recently here? I think it pertains to this conversation.
Here's the article in text form.
************************************************** **************
KEYBOARDS & MUSIC
Myths, Part II: The Myth Of Improvisation
I was talking last issue about how the process of learning depends on copying what other people have done. There's a myth to the effect that you should try to not sound like anybody else, but this can be very destructive because it can keep you from using what you've learned. There's a similar myth about improvising, which is that if you know ahead of time what you're going to play during a solo, you're some*how cheating. I'd like to blow this myth, too, because it puts some severe limits on the soloist, limits that aren't necessary at all.
I see improvisation as a decision by the improviser to not know what he or she is going to play. There's always the possibility of a fresh idea occurring, even in a piece that the artist knows well; but if you interpret your own decision (to not know) too rigidly, you can get trapped by the myth. Trying too hard to be spontaneous, to always be creating something new, can hang up your ability to build an effective solo.
There's a mysteriousness that surrounds improvisation. There seems to be some element present in the playing of the music that isn't known about. But it's really very sim*ple. A musician learns his instrument and his art form, learns about melody and harmony and rhythm, and this gives him a certain knowledge of music. But for him to be able to con*trol his music, he has to be able to imagine a piece: he has to be able to conceive how it will sound before he ever plays it. This is the only way he can make that piece of music be that piece of music, and not some other piece of music.
So with improvisation, he conceives of and controls some of the aspects of what he's going to play before he starts, but other aspects he decides to not know about. In bebop, for example, there is a chord progression which follows, say, a 32-bar form. The chords are very predictable, so that's not improvised; and the player knows that there are certain notes that fit into certain chords, and he knows he'll use those notes, so that's not improvised. What happens is that he takes certain fragments of melodic phrases and strings them together. And they're usually fragments that he already knows. If he didn't, he wouldn't be able to execute them on his instrument. Obviously, those fragments are what people started referring to as ticks.
The thing I've discovered is that the better the improviser gets at what he's doing, the more he's able to predict the shape of the longer phrase. He can predict whole four or eight or sixteen bar units before he plays them. He just decides before he starts a particular chorus that he's going to do such-and-such.
I've heard a story about trumpeter Fats Navarro that illus*trates this. I'm not sure the story is true, but I could conceive of its being true, because I do this myself, and I see other musicians doing it. Navarro would write out a whole chorus of improvisation on, say, "I Got Rhythm." He'd write it down, note for note. And then he would take that chorus of solo and improvise on it. He would string out five or ten choruses based not on the original melody but on the cho*rus he'd written out. It would be like writing his own tune. And that process put him very much in control of his art form.
Another way of looking at it is that the more capable a musician is, and the more logical he is about what he's creat*ing, the harder it is for him to not know what he's going to
play. It starts to become an effort to improvise, unless he's willing to admit to himself that improvising is a game he's playing. He'll get a strained expression on his face, and con*tort his body in all sorts of weird ways, because he's trying to be spontaneous.
In Return To Forever, we find that as we perfect each piece, as we perfect the improvisation within it, the improvi*sation becomes more stable and predictable, and even more lyrical. It's a thing that we acknowledge to be a good thing—it's not harmful. The myth is that you always have to play something different for it to be spontaneous. But that's not true. What's important is how 'there' you are when you're playing; that's really the point. Good music is just good music, whether it's composed, or improvised, or whatever.
When a musician decides to not know what he's going to play, it can still be very unspontaneous, for the same reasons That composed music is not always spontaneous. It simply has to do with whether the person who is playing has his whole attention and control of what he's doing there, at the moment that he's doing it. That's what makes something spontaneous. How different it might be from the last rendition has nothing to do with it. There's a myth that spontaneity has something to do with the musical phrase being different from anything that has come before. But newness is just viewing something from now, from the present moment. It doesn't matter if the tree you're looking at today is the same tree you looked at yesterday. If you're looking at the tree right now, it's a new experience. That's what life is about.
It's a constant problem for a classical pianist to make a piece come to life, when all the notes and all the expression marks are set in advance. The way it's made to come to life, of course, is by the performer's being right where he is at the moment that he's there, playing the piece as though it had never been done before.
There are various decisions that the performer could make about how to improvise. Certain things can be set up in advance, while others are left open. You could have only a set rhythm, or a set chord pattern. You could also have to a large degree a set melody, which you would leave open to minor alterations. Or any or all of these things could be left open. The thing is, the less you decide in advance, the more effort it's going to be to put a piece of music together. The more you decide to not know, the further away you put yourself from the truth, which is that on some level you really do know what you're going to play.
When a musician really doesn't know what he's going to do next, the improvisation tends to be very erratic. You've got to go along a path once or twice or a hundred times before what you're doing comes out as a flow. When a piece comes out as a flow, it's because it's being controlled by the musician. He knows about it. He's done it before. It's a ques*tion of relative degrees of composing. From a present moment, you can decide to compose the next note, or the next five notes, or the next phrase, or the next two phrases, or the whole piece. What makes a good improvisation isn't lack of advance knowledge about the solo; it's the way you put it all together at the moment you're playing, no matter how often you might have played those notes before, that makes the difference.
-
05-07-2010 12:16 PM
-
I find it interesting that when the question is the same but pertains to jazz and not blues some of the same people who are saying listen to to recordings for blues are telling people that for jazz they should;
"First, there are three, non-negotiable things you must learn.
1. the names of all the notes on the fretboard
2. all 12 major scales (i don't care if you can play them, you gotta be able to SPELL them, i.e, C major-- C D E F G A B)
3. Chord formulas for four critical chords: maj7, dom7, m7, and m7b5 (half diminished)"
I have no problem with either approach and have found that over time a student will have to use all approaches to keep getting a more in depth understanding of music and keep progressing.
Do you people feel you don't need to approach both styles of music the same way?
BTW. for me, listening (a lot) to the style I want to learn and learning a few basic songs in that style is the first step in getting my foot in the door. Then as I learn more concepts I can apply them to an actual song rather than approaching them (the concepts) as an intellectual exercise.
-
Excellent post, Gramps. The truth of the matter is that regardless of what you wish to play, Blues or Jazz or anything, the way to learn to play is the same.
When I attended GIT, all the heavy cats, HR, Diorio, Pass, Eschete were all about learning songs. That's the first most important step.
And just so there's no misunderstanding, that means learning the melody and chords (and no less a Master than Lester Young also recommended learning the lyrics). That's what learning a song is. Once you learn a song, then and only then are you ready to try to play a solo. Anything else is putting the cart before the horse.
Ted Greene once said "No one will pay you because you know why Chord X resolves to Chord Y. They pay you to be able to play it." To which I'll add "If you can't play it , they'll hire someone who can."
Name any great musician in any style and you will name someone who above all things can play songs. That's where it all starts. Improvisation, theory and analysis should come later.
Always remember that the first word in analysis is anal. It's called playing for a reason. Learn songs and enjoy yourself.
Regards,
monk
-
Wow! You guys talk about transcribing solos like it's easy. One of the reasons I enjoy improvising so much is that it's so darn hard for me to figure out and learn other people's stuff.
Originally Posted by JohnW400
Sailor,
Sit down with a copy of John Mayall and the Bluesbreaker with Clapton. Then transcribe some of the solos, especially the Freddie King classic Hideaway.
EC 'borrows' (steals
)so many riffs from King, Johnson, etc, that you can't help but learn ther blues from this stuff.
Forget that technical stuff for the blues unless we're talking Monk or Parker. That stuff just tends to get in the way then
-
Like everything else in music the more you transcribe the better you'll get at it. I'm a fan of The Amazing Slowdowner but there are other products that do the same thing. I've been told it's a crutch to slow down and loop sections of music to work them out but it alows me to catch things I wouldn't catch otherwise.
Here's a tip. Find a solo that you want to learn. Loop it and slow it down to a point where you can hear everything easily. Start the loop then clean the house while listening. By the time you're done you'll have it in your mind so you can sit down and start figureing out where it lays in the fingerboard and write it out. (or memorize it)
-
I'll address this since you're quoting me. Originally Posted by Gramps
part of transcribing should be analyzing the why--i mean this in no way to make jazz sound superior to blues, but a three chord blues is a three chord blues. you figure out why it works and you can move on quickly to applying it in all keys--jazz is a good bit more complex when you start looking at "why?"-- a lick might work in ten different musical "situations."
transcribing is critical for learning any kind of music, but some kinds are easier to dive right into.
to dig the why in jazz it sure is easier to have a little understanding of harmony. Look, learning tunes is crucial (it's the crux of my teaching method as well, after the non negotiables!), but again, some things are easier to dive into--you're not gonna play too many jazz tunes if you've not encountered a maj7 chord or a half diminished. I guess what I'm saying is, why struggle when you can lay a little groundwork that will help connect the synapses?
as far as the fretboard knowledge thing goes, I consider that non negotiable for any style. I'm gonna sound like an asshole here, but I'll say it anyway--nothing is more irritiating when you're gonna jam with somebody and you've gotta tell him where to put his fingers to find a chord.
-
Way, way back in the Stone Age when dinosaurs roamed the earth. When electricity had yet to be discovered and steam powered guitars were all that we had........
There were no tabs, no Guitar Player magazine, no home computers, no slowdown software to go with the nonexistent computers, no internet, no books and magazines filled with transcriptions and tab. If one wished to learn a solo by their favorite guitarist there was only one way to do it. Learn it from the record. We slowed down LPs & 45s and sat with our guitar listening to slowed down mush, pulling one slow painful note at a time off the record or we learned to hum, sing or whistle the solo and then transferred it to our guitar.
Django learned Louis Armstong solos, Charlie Christian learned Django and Lester Young solos, Les Paul learned Django solos, Wes Montgomery learned Charlie Christian and Charles Parker solos, B.B. King learned Lonnie Johnson and T-Bone Walker solos, Chet Atkins learned Les Paul and Django solos, Lenny Breau learned Chet Atkins and Johnny Smith solos. If these people reached their goals by copying the solos of those who came before them, I am not going to ignore the results. Count me in. Every solo I've ever learned has helped my playing.
None of these people sprang from their mother's womb fully developed playing Giant Steps. Everyone of them worked very hard to become the musicians that we respect today. They used the music of the players they admired as the foundation to become themselves. Music is not formed in a vacuum.
Transcribing isn't easy but it isn't rocket surgery either. The more you do it the better you get. Just like playing the guitar.
Regards,
monk
-
Glad I started this thread...great advice and even a little contentious!!
I think it shows a variety of advice. I believe that fivebells is OK to ask what learning other peoples licks teaches you, (other than rote memorization), although I do personally know. FatJeff is also right in his ideas about playing and improv. JohnW400 I think falls somewhere in between. You may learn a bunch of cool licks from others but it doesn't NECESSARILY teach you what you are doing; that's up to the individual guitarist to take the analysis to that point.
I have many jazz and blues books and I think they are, in general, poorly written. I've helped write Sailing and Elementary Music curriculums and it is an art unto itself. I think it would be VERY helpful to see some simple examples of jazz, blues, and jazz/blues soloing with explanations for a lot of us. Multiple intelligence theory anyone???
For me, I really need to see music written and have a harmonic/melodic analysis and then I am good to go. Where are the simple blues and jazz etudes for beginners?? The ones I find move too rapidly...progressively. In classical guitar we had quite good method books and I got a long way...college degree...studying methods that had excellent scope and sequence.
Is this alien to the Jazz heritage??
Thanks all, Sailor
-
I think learning jazz (and blues) by it's nature is a less linear learning experience than learning classical guitar. Originally Posted by Sailor
You can play classical guitar as a beginner in your first couple of weeks. Simple tunes but you are playing tunes which is the essence of classical guitar. And they have those graded levels in classical that make it easy to find and study a lot of material right at your level.
A big part of jazz is about improvisation. It's a much longer road to develop that skill. I think that the entry skill level to start playing jazz is higher than it is for rock, classical, or blues guitar.
Matt Warnock gave high reviews on this site to a book called Payin Your Dues With the Blues-The Ultimate Source for the Blues and Jazz Guitarist by Jay Umble. I like the idea of studying jazz via the blues, I love the blues sound in jazz.
That is a book I want to go thru this summer... Anyone want to do a study group/thread kind of thing with that book?Last edited by fep; 05-07-2010 at 09:40 PM.
-
Yes, and Yea...Fep. I wish I had started this jazz journey with the blues, as that is where I am returning too now after struggling with too difficult jazz tunes for more than a year. I learned a lot of great chords and stuff but the essence....need to go back to blues.
Would love to see a thread devoted to on-line study/sharing of blues study. I still think there must be a graduated approach to blues other than the vague...listen a lot...pay your dues stuff. It is an academic as well as artistic endeavor and it should be learnable by musicians that can already play well, read well, etc...I haven't found this to be the case with more modern jazz....yet. I had a teacher for a while, which was a great help, but he was kind of a dick.
Going on-line to listen to blues greats and listen to and take some blues lessons.
Sailor
-
I always hated it. I was never any good at it. The first tune I did was Politician off of Live Creme Volume 2. Then YEARS later I did Jessica by the Allman Brothers. Originally Posted by sdr
But by that time I was getting real good at scales and such so my ear developed from playing and playing and playing scales , arps etc.
Then I got a bunch of students who started to bring in harder stuff (like YES) and stuff I never heard for me to teach them. So I got better at it.
I worked at transcribing chord solos and did ok with a few. Chord voicings are even harder than lines. I never used any slow down software. Plus I really don't have the time to learn other peoples stuff unless i hear an intersting section or part of a tune. Hardly ever the whole tune anymore.
But I was just like you for quite a few years. I avoided it.
-
Thanks for addressing my question Mr. Beaumont. I agree with everything you say accept your aversion to learning a few chord shapes first to start playing a song or two, then working on all the other things you discribed, while digesting songs. Your way is more analytical and mine probably rambles around more but we have the same goals.
Thanks to everyone for shareing their ideas. This is a great forum.
PS. I love transcribing. Seeing the structure of the song. It's changes and how they work with the melody then the solos based on the changes. I'm always blown away at how clever really good musicians (composers) are with just 12 notes.Last edited by Gramps; 05-08-2010 at 09:33 AM.
-
Let me know if this helps:
-
I know your not correct in what you say about the difficulty of jazz to other genres of music. I personally know musicians(more than one) who can tear it up, improvise like crazy, have great reading chops, but when it comes to playing some intermediate classical music, they choke. I know musicians who are opposite, they need to read music or are lost. I think it's what you are exposed to and try early as a musician and what you listen to and hear in your head. Originally Posted by fep
-
ha! and i thought my method was only a few chords! Originally Posted by Gramps
-
You didn't understand what I wrote. Originally Posted by Tony Santodonato
I didn't say it was harder to play jazz...
I said "I think that the entry skill level to start playing jazz is higher than it is for rock, classical, or blues guitar."
In other words it is harder to be a beginner and really be playing jazz (i.e. improvising and all the chord/scale/arpeggio/fretboard knowledge required) than it is to be a beginner at classical guitar (just look at grade 1 classical material) or a beginner at rock guitar (learn one bar chord shape and you can play hundreds of songs) or a beginner at blues guitar (learn two dominant 7th chord shapes and a penatonic scale and you can play hundreds of blues songs).
To be an expert, which is not what I was talking about, it is difficult in all these styles. But I am talking about a beginner level.
You can think what you want... but I think you are the one that is clearly wrong (and please don't state your opinions as though they are facts).Last edited by fep; 05-08-2010 at 05:45 PM.
-
The blues... yea... any guitarist can play the blues, and you only need a few notes... you really don't need to many chops, actually they usually just get in the way. Nobody needs a chart ...hell some of the best blues players are blind... There are jazz players and those who play jazz... there are also blues players and those who play blues... personally I wish ever player who wants to play jazz had to learn to play the blues first... The blues are not collections of notes, theory etc... there all about the feel, the groove... how you lock in. The rhythm is more important than the notes...Yea listen to some of the greats... I dig T-bone and and most of the older players... it doesn't take to long to hear how it's played. I dig listening more than playing the blues, ( years of playing blues gigs). But I do enjoy jazz with blues feels, harmonically, melodically and with that groove... I been lucky to play with some great B-3 blues players... that's the shit... it doesn't get a whole lot better for jazz guitarists... you don't get bored and the groove is everything. Never see charts... but you do need big ears.. As far as what style of music is more difficult... who cares... you can either cover or you can't. Listen to some Joey D., Dr. Lonie Smith, old Benson, McDuff and of course Jimmy Smith... Pass was alright... Reg
-
One small note before I head to 2nd gig... At some point you don't need to transcribe everything... you should be able to hear it, that is the point isn't it, to train your ears so you can hear what's actually going on and then play what you hear... it was for me. Best Reg
-
I'm not here to argue with you but you sound like your describing a more advanced student than a beginner. Doe's a student really need all that knowledge to play legitimate jazz. I say no because my beginning students do it all the time. Of course they are not making records but are having fun and enjoying the freedom of jazz. When Parker realized there are no real wrong notes,it was a revelation. I state my opinions based on real world facts. I play all the different genres,gig professionally,record professionally,give lessons,and play guitar,sax,and keys.I thought this board was for voicing intelligent opinions. Originally Posted by fep
-
Whoooaaa Tony!! I love your posts so far....but the tone here is VERY civil. Fep, and all these other guys have thousands of posts and lots of great advice. This is the COOL forum!
Sailor
-
Tony,
You're lucky to have students that can pick up improvising so easily. a lot of student's can't.
Ask Sailor. He's having a tough time and, beside a degree in music, he also recently took jazz lessons for a while.
Just look at all the people that post in the improvisation forum. IMHO it looks like there are lots of intermediate rock, blues and classical players that are having trouble. Hence all the questions.
The thing I think that would make improv difficult is the "thinking on your feet" nature of improv. I believe that would be tough for someone only used to coping the latest Foo Fighters riff or Aron Sher classical guitar arrangments.
Blues guys would have it easier I would think, unless all they ever did was memorize SRV solos.
-
Yes, the harmonic relationships you outlined are correct.
However, Blues is a language and not just scales.
This is why different players use different scales and sounds.
I like how BB King uses major pentatonic scales over dominant chords...
Have you heard of a method called "Playing Through The Blues?
Good luck!!
-
I've got that method and I've worked through most of it. It was pretty much below my level - I think it's aimed more at guys who don't really know much about playing blues at all, and aren't all that strong on the fretboard. Nothing wrong with that, and the material is well presented, it just was too easy for me. Originally Posted by franamico
If you know basic bar chords and can use a couple different forms of pentatonic or blues scales to solo over a basic I-IV-V, then you will probably find it pretty easy.
-
Was it really Bird who coined that phrase? I've heard it variously attributed to Miles, Mingus and McCoy Tyner. Originally Posted by Tony Santodonato
-
it's attributed to whoever we're elevating to godlike status at the moment. Just like the "forget that shit (theory) and play" comment.
There sure as hell are bad notes, and mistakes. It's about how you recover, and how you resolve.
Reply With Quote
Has anyone played or had a Supro Amulet ?
Today, 04:44 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos