The Problem With Studying The Jazz Language

[pamosmusic]

This article has some very important insight that you should all pay attention to. Stop being so black and white, it's not one or the other. You need a balance of both copying and originality in order to learn and grow as a musician. This article reflects a very similar insight I have had over the last few years. I've been playing music for 25 years. I've copied so many musicians from so many different styles. I've basically have spent the last 25 years mostly just learning other peoples music, and have barely ever written anything of my own. The pro to that is I have a huge variety of experience in playing different types of music including folk, rock, blues, jazz, classical, baroque, renaissance, modern musics (like 12-tone, poly-tonal, minimalism, etc..), a large variety of Brazilian music, tangos, milongas, etc....and more. The negative is that I've spent less than 1% of my time focusing on original ideas. After all these years of studying and performing music, here is the one important realization I have had: I should have spent more time working on original material. Why? Because here I am at the age of 42 and like many of you, the best I can do is get some shitty restaurant gig playing background music for people who don't care anyways. And the music I'm playing has been played millions of times before by millions of other musicians, so why should it surprise me that nobody cares or wants to pay me very much? Who are the musicians making a great living and enjoying themselves while doing it? The ones who have been working on original stuff from almost the beginning. I'm not saying that writing original stuff = success. I'm saying those musicians that are successful write original music. There's a big difference between the two statements. Who are the musicians who either have to work a day job or barely scrape by playing shitty gigs? The ones who spend the majority of their time learning covers. It's easy for me to see now that quite possibly the worst thing you can do as a musician if you want to have a successful career in music is focus on learning other peoples music instead of creating your own. Hey I'm not saying that it's the worst thing to do if you just want to play music as a hobby, or do weekend gigs for extra cash. But let's be honest here, most of us didn't have the goal of eventually playing shitty gigs while working a day job. Many of you, like me, probably had the dream of having a great career in music. And so what I'm saying is if that was your goal, but you find yourself in a similar position that I am in, the problem is almost certainly that like me you have wasted too much time copying and not enough time creating. That's all the article above is really saying. Not that it is wrong for you to copy other musicians if you just want to sing campfire songs or do weekend warrior gigs, or just play for fun or to show off on youtube. If you have a solid career that you enjoy and pays the bills, then by all means spend all your time learning covers / transcribing solos. But if what you really want to do in life is have a career in music, you need to spend the majority of your time working on original material. If I could hop in a time machine and go back and tell myself 1 thing, it would be that. If I could tell myself 2 things, the second might be get a degree in marketing instead of music (so that you can be successful in music).

i think you're misunderstanding what people are advocating here. They're talking about transcribing lines as a means of learning to improvise. Not playing cover tunes or copping lines for their entire lives and playing them verbatim over and over again forever. I'd like to ask you a few hypothetical questions.

yes you should compose - but how do you learn what to write? How do you develop a taste? How do you develop an ear for melody and harmony?

yes you should play original ideas but I'd not lines then what do you propose a person practice? How do you learn what you like and don't like? Do you really think that beginning improvisers are so inventive that they'll just stumble onto all the great ideas and sounds out there purely by chance?

[christianm77]

I believe that my post has been slightly misunderstood. I have used the wrong word from the outset. I should have used individuality, not originality. I was referring to each person's individual "voice", which I consider basically the product of a series of conscious decisions and lots of follow-up work, not some automatic reward for learning 200 tunes and 200 licks(that is my entire point in one sentence actually). It may or may not be good. May or may not be original. Your motivations may be honest or superficial. For the purposes of my post, none of these things matter - regardless of motivation, outcome, product quality etc., it is going to be upto the player to decide - "Will I play other peoples notes, or my notes?"

As far as the motivations to sound original go, I won't comment on what is right or what is wrong. I say, however superficial the motivation, if you want to do it go for it. At the very least, you're playing guitar - you're working on chops if nothing else. Working your musical judgement skills too. No harm done. If it is dishonest, or false, you will feel it in your gut. It just won't be that much fun. But if at any point in your day, you hear or imagine or play something that just hits you like a ton of bricks - chase and nurture it as far as you can. Or don't. It's upto you.

I think the important thing, the really important thing, is the process. Individuality itself is a tricky word because it implies the primacy of the self, which isn't quite what I want from playing music.

Anyway, I think we are in agreement by the sounds of it... I think one's motivations change too...

[pushkar000]

who takes up jazz and plays it "dishonestly", or "false"? This just seems like knocking down a straw man to me.
I think the reverse is more often true, that people want desperately to be "artists" and "meaningful" and "profound" and "authentic", etc, but don't do the basic homework required to do it in their chosen endeavor, especially when it's something with as much history and depth as jazz.

Maybe we are actually in agreement.
I think those people you mentioned - ultimately they would sit down and realize somewhere inside, that this isn't it. It's just not that much fun or satisfying or exhilarating. If you're on to something with real worth, it'll be the most captivating thing in the universe.
Who knows really...I'm just trying to play like Pat Martino...give me that and I'll be more than satisfied.

[rictroll]

Jazz is a team event for the most part.

I believe much of anyone's voice - or originality - comes from how they interact in real time with other musicians in a jazz setting.

Practice to be competent and flexible - play with others to find your voice and challenge your risk threshold.

[Reg]

OK so you've transcribed a bunch of wes tunes and solos... So what are the characteristics, that define the style. Can you write a jazz tune in the style of Wes... and then solo over or under that tune in the style of Wes.

If your really trying to learn the language... after a few tunes... you should be able to. If you can't... yea you might have helped your technique... maybe. But maybe you missed the point. What is the point.

At some point... your going to reach a level of skill and musicianship that you don't need to recite what you have memorized. Your going to be able to perform in your style... good or bad. And if that style is a jazz style... there are basic characteristics. Of any style... and you can cover those characteristics and still have your voice. But if you don't know what the characteristics are, or at least make some choices... your voice may never happen.

So learning the language isn't the problem.... it not learning what defines the style and characteristics of the language.

Talking using words, sentences doesn't work that well when you don't know what the words mean.

There is also that other small detail about actually be able to perform in a jazz style of performance.

[Guitarzen]

I thought we were talking about jazz here, and developing one's voice as a jazz improvisor. Your use of the word "covers" indicates you are referring to pop music, and perhaps everything you say is correct in that context. But that's a different topic.

Pkirk, whenever you play a composition someone else wrote, you are playing a cover. That's how I meant it. If you play any jazz standards, and I know most of us on here do, you are playing covers. And while we certainly have the ability to be original to some degree in how we improvise over the changes, that's not really what I was talking about. And in general I don't hear much originality in most jazz musicians soloing (including mine!), as we all tend to try to sound like someone or a mixture of different jazz players. Everything I said is correct to me personally, as I said this is an important realization that I have had for myself. I understand it may not reflect how everyone feels. But nonetheless, there is an important point in there that I think is somewhat universal for all musicians in that essentially our society doesn't give a rats ass for those musicians who play other peoples music. This is reflected in how someone like say Pat Metheny is treated and paid compared to how Joe Blow who plays COVERS out of the real book at the local restaurant is treated.

[Guitarzen]

i think you're misunderstanding what people are advocating here. They're talking about transcribing lines as a means of learning to improvise. Not playing cover tunes or copping lines for their entire lives and playing them verbatim over and over again forever. I'd like to ask you a few hypothetical questions.

yes you should compose - but how do you learn what to write? How do you develop a taste? How do you develop an ear for melody and harmony?

yes you should play original ideas but I'd not lines then what do you propose a person practice? How do you learn what you like and don't like? Do you really think that beginning improvisers are so inventive that they'll just stumble onto all the great ideas and sounds out there purely by chance?

I'm referring mainly to the OP and how it relates to my own observations, I don't see how I misunderstood something. Like I said, it's not a black and white issue, you need both copying & learning of what has already been done, and some originality if you want to give yourself the best shot at having the best possible music career you can have. I never once in my post suggested you should avoid learning and mimicking what's already been done, and your questions seem to imply that is what you read of my response. I see no point in answering your questions since they were geared with the false assumption that I meant "f#$#$ learning anything from our musical heritage and just go all original dude!!" It appears to me the misunderstanding is yours. I love how no matter what you post and how clearly you explain your point of view there is always someone waiting to jump on you and debate with you on what you didn't say or mean in any shape or form.

[pamosmusic]

Not that it is wrong for you to copy other musicians if you just want to sing campfire songs or do weekend warrior gigs, or just play for fun or to show off on youtube. If you have a solid career that you enjoy and pays the bills, then by all means spend all your time learning covers / transcribing solos. But if what you really want to do in life is have a career in music, you need to spend the majority of your time working on original material. If I could hop in a time machine and go back and tell myself 1 thing, it would be that. If I could tell myself 2 things, the second might be get a degree in marketing instead of music (so that you can be successful in music).

Well I wasn't intending to be combative... And I don't think I misunderstood. I don't think spending your time transcribing relegates one to a life of day jobs and being a weekend warrior. I also don't agree that a person should spend "the majority of your time working on original material" ... I think that the only way to make your original material come out is to know everyone else's material really well. Again - I wasn't trying to be combative. I'm asking - what do you work on if the majority of your time should be spent on original material? How do you improve? Where do the ideas come from?

[Hep To The Jive]

I'm asking - what do you work on if the majority of your time should be spent on original material? How do you improve? Where do the ideas come from?

How about the ideas come from YOU? From your head? What, you don't think you can come up with a lick of your own worth practicing? Or a tune worth playing on the gig? If you listen to jazz for a long time, you should be able to at least re create the feel of it, which all that matters really. You don't need constantly transcribe for that. A couple solos here and there, just to help to understand a concept, and then off you go, do your own thing.

[pamosmusic]

And when do the ideas come from you? After you're playing for a week or two? A year? Is your ear sophisticated enough to be able to push your chops?

Look I try to write every single day ... I'm just saying that having the emphasis be on your original stuff is INCREDIBLY value but doesn't always qualify as practice.

[Hep To The Jive]

And when do the ideas come from you? After you're playing for a week or two? A year? Is your ear sophisticated enough to be able to push your chops?

Look I try to write every single day ... I'm just saying that having the emphasis be on your original stuff is INCREDIBLY value but doesn't always qualify as practice.

Ha, you know it made me think... As far as I remember, in all honesty, ideas started coming after I could put a couple of notes together. That was the main joy for me in music throughout the whole life- coming up with my stuff. Maybe only 0.1 % of it was good, I don't care, either it soloing, or composing, thats the best part. In that sense, I guess, I 've done very little practicing. Just a bare minimum, to pass through college LOL

[gggomez]

Thanks Patrick2, have been throwing myself into transcribing (and assimilating etc). Loving that but forgot one of my big goals this year is to write 3 original pieces, need to put more resources/time into that.

[pamosmusic]

I totally get that ... I just happen to think that the ear and the hands are pretty closely linked. I don't really think most people's ears hear something their hands haven't been over yet. So the idea is that you should constantly be stimulating your ear with other people's ideas. Then you synthesize it into your own thing. I totally think that some people can do this by listening and don't need to transcribe or learn loads of tunes. That's just some people though.

[Hep To The Jive]

I totally get that ... I just happen to think that the ear and the hands are pretty closely linked. I don't really think most people's ears hear something their hands haven't been over yet. So the idea is that you should constantly be stimulating your ear with other people's ideas. Then you synthesize it into your own thing. I totally think that some people can do this by listening and don't need to transcribe or learn loads of tunes. That's just some people though.

Well, wait, there's a difference between transcribing solos and learning tunes. Knowing as many tunes as you can possibly do is important thing in jazz. Not many people would call you for a jazz gig if you don't know certain number of standards. It happens to be my weak point, and the one I realize I will have to work on whether I like it or not. And I don't, it's just something I have to do. But I'm gonna work on them using my own ideas for improvisation, by jamming and trying things out, not transcribing. I'm gonna play some harsh notes, sure, by mistake, but the ones I get right are my own and they will stay with me. It's all about ratio (crap/good): 2 years ago it was 80/20, these days it's more like 60/40. Slow but surely!

[pamosmusic]

Well, wait, there's a difference between transcribing solos and learning tunes. Knowing as many tunes as you can possibly do is important thing in jazz. Not many people would call you for a jazz gig if you don't know certain number of standards. It happens to be my weak point, and the one I realize I will have to work on whether I like it or not. And I don't, it's just something I have to do. But I'm gonna work on them using my own ideas for improvisation, by jamming and trying things out, not transcribing. I'm gonna play some harsh notes, sure, by mistake, but the ones I get right are my own and they will stay with me. It's all about ratio (crap/good): 2 years ago it was 80/20, these days it's more like 60/40. Slow but surely!

Well that distinction wasn't drawn in the post I was originally addressing when you joined in.

I also sort of think that learning tunes is to writing tunes as transcribing lines is to playing lines.

[grahambop]

Pkirk, whenever you play a composition someone else wrote, you are playing a cover. That's how I meant it. If you play any jazz standards, and I know most of us on here do, you are playing covers. And while we certainly have the ability to be original to some degree in how we improvise over the changes, that's not really what I was talking about. And in general I don't hear much originality in most jazz musicians soloing (including mine!), as we all tend to try to sound like someone or a mixture of different jazz players. Everything I said is correct to me personally, as I said this is an important realization that I have had for myself. I understand it may not reflect how everyone feels. But nonetheless, there is an important point in there that I think is somewhat universal for all musicians in that essentially our society doesn't give a rats ass for those musicians who play other peoples music. This is reflected in how someone like say Pat Metheny is treated and paid compared to how Joe Blow who plays COVERS out of the real book at the local restaurant is treated.

It might also be because Pat Metheny is about 1000 times better than Joe Blow.

[grahambop]

But nonetheless, there is an important point in there that I think is somewhat universal for all musicians in that essentially our society doesn't give a rats ass for those musicians who play other peoples music. This is reflected in how someone like say Pat Metheny is treated and paid compared to how Joe Blow who plays COVERS out of the real book at the local restaurant is treated.

I think you have a point in that playing your own tunes might help give you more of an identity, but I also think the question is more complex than that. After all, people like Martin Taylor and Howard Alden have been pretty successful mainly playing standards and other people's tunes.

I think Pat Metheny is a bit of a one-off. As well as being a great musician, he worked his butt off to promote himself, touring all the college campuses and building up a following at the beginning of his career. That meant driving the band van around the USA for 300 days a year or something ridiculous like that, if I correctly recall an interview he gave about this. Then he developed the Pat Metheny Group thing with Lyle Mays, which had a big appeal to the same college audience (who by now had become affluent wage-earners). That music is not really 'jazz' in most people's definition, but it got his name out there and built up some record sales. That made it easier for him to put out the jazz trio recordings every now and then.

[christianm77]

There is a real tendency on internet forums to stereotype or characterise the other person's views - erect a strawman basically. It's easily done, everyone does it, most certainly me. Nuance tends to get forgotten haha!

[christianm77]

I think Pat Metheny is a bit of a one-off. As well as being a great musician, he worked his butt off to promote himself, touring all the college campuses and building up a following at the beginning of his career. That meant driving the band van around the USA for 300 days a year or something ridiculous like that, if I correctly recall an interview he gave about this. Then he developed the Pat Metheny Group thing with Lyle Mays, which had a big appeal to the same college audience (who by now had become affluent wage-earners). That music is not really 'jazz' in most people's definition, but it got his name out there and built up some record sales. That made it easier for him to put out the jazz trio recordings every now and then.

Thanks for that info - it's very interesting. One can assume that those as prodigious as Metheny would be recognised and assisted in every way possible, but this is not in fact the case. I recently heard the story of a world class player that is having trouble finding a label for his record, for example.

While I'm sure Metheny could have coasted and picked up enough jazz gigs to keep him in work, he didn't choose this route. And while effort doesn't necessarily result in success, if you want to play your own music you have to get your hands dirty and do some hard work at some point! Usually the stuff you don't want do - picking up the phone and calling people, sending emails and so on. Or driving hundreds of miles.

[grahambop]

Yes, I think that's why a world-class player like Jimmy Raney was virtually off the scene for years, despite having won fame playing with Stan Getz in the 50s. By his own admission (or maybe his son Jon said it, I can't remember which), he was not really interested in the business side, hustling and promoting himself etc.

[pingu]

i think in jazz you are or should be
'composing' (making up stuff)
all the time
obviously when you're improvising ,
but also when comping ,
walking a bass-line , playing riffs
whatever really ....

at least at tempos that are comfortable anyway

thats a major defining attribute of 'jazz' innit ?

[fumblefingers]

i think that "Bill" makes some useful suggestions in this article. I interpret him to be saying something like the following - "when one is taking their journey through Imitate, Assimilate, Innovate, don't treat it as a 100% linear process, because it may take way too long to engage and develop your artistic/creative abilities".

i think that makes some sense. there are some process analogies in the software systems field, namely (1) Utilize "Phase Overlap" of the development phases, and (2) use an 'Iterative & Incremental" process for the development phases.

both of those grew out of a need to overcome deficiencies in results achieved by strictly following a linear process. a couple of interpretations for jazz improv studies follow.


1. Phase Overlap - start Assimilating before you are done Imitating, and start Innovating before you are done Assimilating.

2. Iterative & Incremental - Limit the scope of work to a small amount (like 1 tune). Then Imitate, Assimilate, and Innovate (as best you can, even if only a little). Then start another small "assignment" and do it again. Then keep doing this over and over.

Oh, and use a tutor/mentor/teacher as well.

[pkirk]

Yes, I think that's why a world-class player like Jimmy Raney was virtually off the scene for years, despite having won fame playing with Stan Getz in the 50s. By his own admission (or maybe his son Jon said it, I can't remember which), he was not really interested in the business side, hustling and promoting himself etc.

A bass player I play with grew up in Lousiville, where Raney moved back to in his later years, and heard him a lot. He tells me that the last time he heard Raney he was playing solo standards in a pizza restaurant, with nobody listening.

[fumblefingers]

A bass player I play with grew up in Lousiville, where Raney moved back to in his later years, and heard him a lot. He tells me that the last time he heard Raney he was playing solo standards in a pizza restaurant, with nobody listening.

kind of like with Tal, or Ted Greene, or even Tim Miller...

[pkirk]

1. Phase Overlap - start Assimilating before you are done Imitating, and start Innovating before you are done Assimilating.

2. Iterative & Incremental - Limit the scope of work to a small amount (like 1 tune). Then Imitate, Assimilate, and Innovate (as best you can, even if only a little). Then start another small "assignment" and do it again. Then keep doing this over and over.

I agree with what you wrote here, but what aspiring jazz musician *doesn't* do this? We're all in it to become, at the very least, competent jazz improvisors. Many never get there, but I've never heard of someone not getting there because
all they practiced was imitation. Anyone who learns a few licks or transcribes a solo presumably does this with the intent of becoming adept at producing their own variants of what they are learning.

Maybe I'm wrong. Are there lots of people who imitate, but never practice using what they learn in different contexts? Are there some players (other than maybe classical players who learn jazz solos from a score) who can imitate well but can't improvise at all? And, to get to the OP, are there players who "know the language" but don't "play with feeling"?

My own take is that creativity can't be forced, it emerges organically, provided one takes care of the craft side of things.