Approaches to Improvisation

[James W]

I've been re-watching the Mike Moreno videos on MyMusicMasterclasses recently and one of the things he suggests is to connect chord changes with scales horizontally across the neck only stopping when you have reached the very top or bottom, rather than (or I prefer - in addition to) position playing which he doesn't seem too keen on because he has an aversion to the tone of the lower strings higher up the fretboard. Anyway I've been dipping into this with (what else?) Stella By Starlight and enjoying it - undoubtedly more than listeners will enjoy it haha - I do hesitate now and again. But it's fun and after this I tried just doing a continuous eighth note exercise without any strictures and found myself going horizontally up and down the neck anyway.

[grahambop]

Mike Stern recommends that too in his masterclass video, I think he calls it a continuous scale exercise.

I have done it a bit and it’s quite challenging. I do it mostly by ear, I don’t really think about which scale etc. while playing. Maybe that’s a benefit, I have to really know the sounds of the changes properly to do it. (Or maybe I’m doing it wrong!)

I’ve got a couple of the Mike Moreno videos too, good stuff.

[James W]

Mike Stern recommends that too in his masterclass video, I think he calls it a continuous scale exercise.

I have done it a bit and it’s quite challenging. I do it mostly by ear, I don’t really think about which scale etc. while playing. Maybe that’s a benefit, I have to really know the sounds of the changes properly to do it. (Or maybe I’m doing it wrong!)

I’ve got a couple of the Mike Moreno videos too, good stuff.

Impressive! I'm still at the stage of making a mental note of what chord I'm on and what scale I should be playing.

Yeah I like these Moreno vids. I'm on his comping video right now.

[grahambop]

Yes I got the Moreno comping one, he makes some very good points.

I just checked the Mike Stern one and he does the scale exercise on Giant Steps, that’s a good tune for it because the scale changes so often.

I tried it on GS and I was ok until the second half, kept losing my way there. So obviously I need to work on that section more!

[Mick-7]

Mike Stern recommends that too in his masterclass video, I think he calls it a continuous scale exercise.

I have done it a bit and it’s quite challenging. I do it mostly by ear, I don’t really think about which scale etc. while playing. Maybe that’s a benefit, I have to really know the sounds of the changes properly to do it. (Or maybe I’m doing it wrong!)

Doing it by ear is the eventual goal but it can be "doing it wrong" in terms of practice because if you don't know what notes you're playing, you won't know which scale notes to change as you move from chord to chord. This will require thinking in terms of smaller note sets: scale fragments and chord tones.

[Christian Miller]

Better to do things by ear than by brain.

Brain can help the ear sometimes. "Oh look", say brain, "that thing we saw in that other thing is here in this thing, let's give it a name and look out for it!" And ear say, "yes I think I can listen out for that thing, thanks Brain" and fingers go "hurr durr" because fingers not clever, but can be trained.

Sometimes brain, say "hey I should run the show" and he sound clever, so ear listen, because ear not sure he is good enough to run show.

But sometimes ear and fingers have much more of a clue and brain just muck thing up, especially rhythm.

But then sometimes fingers run show when brain is trying to work out what to do. And fingers go "hurt durr" and the music go "clang" or "widdly widdly woo". Which is not optimal.

[Mick-7]

Well, both are important, otherwise why practice technical stuff - scale and chord theory, etc. - at all? And it's hard to trouble-shoot what you don't understand.

But I suppose my previous comment could be amended: "This will require thinking - and hearing - in terms of smaller note sets: scale fragments and chord tones."

[Christian Miller]

Well, both are important, otherwise why practice technical stuff - scale and chord theory, etc. - at all?

Is this not begging the question?

I mean, people get very exercised over this issue, but I find it quite useful intellectually as someone who knows a lot of theory - to ask how much or how little is required? And for what?

My suspicion is - not a whole lot. If we go back far enough people sang the modes before the ancient music theorists classified them. It has ever been thus.

Jazz's main issue is its that so many books centre improvisation and free expression (great things to be sure) from the get go and insists people come up with their own lines right from the start. Popular books disclose a great number of intellectual tools that purport to do this. Most often, this simply doesn't work, but people persevere with it any way because sunk costs. Furthermore, these tools will never without the breath of life an accomplished musician - with ears - can give them.

There's a perfectly good way to learn jazz, and in fact this is taught today at all the schools. It requires the student to become a musician, and to become acquainted and confident in using their ear, and to exercise a certain humility and patience.

The correct way to learn music has always been, to learn music. To become a musician is being able to hear music, and the better a musician you are, the more clearly you can hear music in detail. Instrumental ability is then quite simply being able to play what you hear. Any jazz teacher worth their time will tell you that. Tristano would have said the same thing.

(reading which is given central importance in Western musical culture muddies the waters a little, but actually I think it doesn't change the fundamentals. It's still about the aural imagination and the ability to give that voice on the instrument.)

None of which is to say scales are worthless. Or practicing scales up and down through a tune isn't a good exercise. They are essential for learning your instrument.

But a scale is not a theoretical concept anyway, really. It's very simple musical object that is omnipresent in musical culture. Everyone knows Do Re Mi Fa Sol. Every singer will be able to sing steps up and down over a chord whether or not they know theory. A million singer songwriters write songs that way on guitar.

One half or whole step after another. If you can sing it, the next step is to put it on the instrument. One should be able to hear that, and doing it slowly and mindfully is the correct way to practice.

And then the labelling is 'purely for identification and serves no other purpose' as Holdsworth put it. He used a bunch of symbols. Later he learned the names other jazz players used. NBD.

[Tal_175]

In general, I think, people only practice things with "brain" if they can't do it by ear. Usually, the latter is the reason why they are practicing that thing in the first place. For example, if one decides to practice soloing over a tune's changes by only playing guide tones and they do it by ear, that's great. But if they transcribed what they played, they were all over the place, then they may benefit from doing the exercise with "brain" until they can hear the guide tones.

[pamosmusic]

In general, I think, people only practice things with "brain" if they can't do it by ear. Usually, the latter is the reason why they are practicing that thing in the first place. For example, if one decides to practice soloing over a tune's changes by only playing guide tones and they do it by ear, that's great. But if they transcribed what they played, they were all over the place, then they may benefit from doing the exercise with "brain" until they can hear the guide tones.

This would describe pretty well why I practice Brain First, which I do quite often.

I have a good but unexceptional ear and kind of scratch and claw to maintain it. Often I have to think of something and train myself to hear it. Or hear something and make sure it’s kind of filed in the correct drawer or whatever so I can get back to it until it’s internalized.

[pauln]

...you don't know what notes you're playing, you won't know which scale notes to change as you move from chord to chord. This will require thinking in terms of....

Playing by ear means never having to know what notes; it's producing the sounds without naming anything, knowing the sound of what you're hearing, what you want to play, the sound of playing it, and knowing how to change the sounds as you move through it without thinking of named anything - notes, intervals, scale degrees/fragments, or chord tones.

[Christian Miller]

Playing by ear means never having to know what notes; it's producing the sounds without naming anything, knowing the sound of what you're hearing, what you want to play, the sound of playing it, and knowing how to change the sounds as you move through it without thinking of named anything - notes, intervals, scale degrees/fragments, or chord tones.

More common among horn player - Lester Young, Art Pepper, according to some Stan Getz - all fall more into this category. I've gigged with horn players on my own circuit who have this kind of approach, very limited harmonic theory, they improvise purely melodically.

Guitar - well it's a shape instrument. I can't listen to Django and not think some of his ideas are built around the geometry of the fretboard. Grips'n'licks are natural to the guitar.

(Of course the more 'advanced' players spend a lot of time learning to map the guitar along the lines of the piano keyboard. So there's part of me that wonders to what extent what we think of as Theory is just stuff that's obvious to piano players.)

[Christian Miller]

In general, I think, people only practice things with "brain" if they can't do it by ear. Usually, the latter is the reason why they are practicing that thing in the first place. For example, if one decides to practice soloing over a tune's changes by only playing guide tones and they do it by ear, that's great. But if they transcribed what they played, they were all over the place, then they may benefit from doing the exercise with "brain" until they can hear the guide tones.

Well there's your problem, as they say

In many cases a theoretical concept like 'guide tone' is also the same as a well known melody you can sing. So, All the Things You are for example (remembering this was a popular song sung by Michael Jackson among others before it became a fossil jazz tune).

Immersion in musical culture is going to teach you the sound of these patterns because they are everywhere. Why not teach guide tones on the ATTYA A sections as a variation on the melody?

Does that mean there's no value in having a name for that specific thing? Not necessarily. But Bach's name for it was different to yours anyway.

A lot of music educators I know do this thing where they collect examples of things from the Harmony 101 syllabus in pop songs or whatever. It's good clean fun. So long as we realise that the songs are more important than the textbook lol.

[Tal_175]

Well there's your problem, as they say

Yes, master.

In many cases a theoretical concept like 'guide tone' is also the same as a well known melody you can sing. So, All the Things You are for example (remembering this was a popular song sung by Michael Jackson among others before it became a fossil jazz tune).

Immersion in musical culture is going to teach you the sound of these patterns because they are everywhere. Why not teach guide tones on the ATTYA A sections as a variation on the melody?

I think we are talking about different things. If someone asks about how to outline tunes with Barry Harris scale exercises, I wouldn't say just "immerse in musical culture". I don't think most successful jazz musicians' journey can be characterized with simplistic terms. Developing as a musician involves working within different paradigms. Brain vs Ear is a false dichotomy.

[pauln]

(Of course the more 'advanced' players spend a lot of time learning to map the guitar along the lines of the piano keyboard.

Like this...?



or maybe...

[Tal_175]

Immersion in musical culture is going to teach you the sound of these patterns because they are everywhere. Why not teach guide tones on the ATTYA A sections as a variation on the melody?

Or you can teach them how to find guide tones so they can find the guide tone melody to any tune on their own and sing it?

[Mick-7]

Playing by ear means never having to know what notes; it's producing the sounds without naming anything, knowing the sound of what you're hearing, what you want to play, the sound of playing it, and knowing how to change the sounds as you move through it without thinking of named anything - notes, intervals, scale degrees/fragments, or chord tones.

As I said, that's the eventual goal, but if you have trouble doing it, and not just melodically but harmonically too, i.e., if you can't play chord progressions when you hear them, then theory can be helpful. Horn players don't have that concern. And maybe you don't want to play what the chords suggest, maybe you want to play outside the changes, your natural hearing tendencies can be an impediment to that, at least at first.

[Christian Miller]

Yes, master.

I think we are talking about different things. If someone asks about how to outline tunes with Barry Harris scale exercises, I wouldn't say just "immerse in musical culture". I don't think most successful jazz musicians' journey can be characterized with simplistic terms. Developing as a musician involves working within different paradigms. Brain vs Ear is a false dichotomy.

It's simply how it occurs to you, because that's how you've worked on it (and me too) which isn't a satisfactory basis for thinking it must be so. I mean I would sy that it's the most commonly trodden path these days Barry Harris, kind of the same path, only he was much better at it.

It is not a false dichotomy. These are two separate things, and one is more important. It's worth thinking about.

A dilemma for anyone trying to teach music.

But I think what I'm interested in is the core of what is this about - what makes us able to play music, and what's the way of cutting out all the noise and focussing in on it? And that must be the most important thing to learn. It has to be, because it's the thing that all good musicians, regardless other schooling or knowledge, share. And it comes down to the ear. Hear a thing, play the thing.

(Hearing a thing is far more of the struggle than people think, it seems to me, but that's another conversation.)

so that has to be the thing to prioritise. And it works - it always sounds better. And I think for the apprentice, sounding good is the goal. Concerns about process can wait.

In a broader sense I think that I would like to teach the sound first. It’s easy to get turned around when teaching at any level.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

I also think 'immerse yourself in musical culture' sounds more passive than what I mean. I don't mean, put on a bunch of Blue Note records and hope for the best. It's very active, I'm talking about close detailed listening, learning hundreds of songs by ear, playing with other musicians. People used to do this for fun... non professionals.

I'm thinking of folk musicians for instance. Jazz isn't so far away from that, but we have portrayed it as a branch of rocket science with a side helping of philosophy, because it sells books and courses. Sure the music has evolved in that direction (it's a feedback loop), but I don't think you need a degree in harmony to play a swinging chorus on Rhythm Changes. I really don't. But you have to try and learn the music - and that starts by copying what you hear.

[Christian Miller]

Or you can teach them how to find guide tones so they can find the guide tone melody to any tune on their own and sing it?

How important is that and why?

If you could just play stuff that you like by ear why not just do that?

Genuine question, I have no idea.

A well listened ear would gravitate to guide tones because that's what a lot of melodies are on cycle 4 progs. (On II V I's not so much BTW). If you've listened to enough songs you will have heard it a bunch of times.

I mean I'm a nerd, I categorise things a lot. "Guide tones around cycle 4" is really just a name for one commonly used voice leading pattern that is used in a lot of songs (there are others for that cycle too.) I use it for teaching myself.

But I'm not sure how important any of that in the final analysis. Better musicians than me would stare at some of the stuff I come up with and think I'd lost my mind haha. I think ear training may be easier when you categorise various schemata. In jazz, II V I is an obvious schema. Guide tones on the cycle is another, CESH, Montgomery Ward etc etc. But if you go to the songs you'll see all of that anyway if you learn enough of them. It's just names for bits of songs.

So I suppose the question is do we go holistic - dive in to the songs, learn as much as you can, acquire knowledge as you go - or reductionist - systematic, break things down to understand what's going on step by step. It seems most musicians historically were quite holistic. Jazz specifically was mostly built on an apprenticeship system for the first half of its history.

OTOH the eighteenth century conservatoires seemed to have taught this type of stuff systematically and those musicians were pretty amazingly skilled....

It's quite important for me to understand the difference between my geeky preoccupations and what is actually genuinely useful for the student.

[Tal_175]

Christian, you are making philosophical and broader pedagogical points and that's fine. I do appreciate the importance of finding a direct connection to being musical. But when you sit down to practice, what you do becomes very concrete. Since this is a practice oriented thread, I want to ground the discussion on concrete tasks. Lets take Barry Harris scale exercises (as I know you practiced them.) How would you show that exercise to an advance-ish student?
- Have them them try to figure out the scales by ear, making sure they aren't thinking in fretboard patterns or note names?
- The way you practiced them? (I suppose you relied on fretboard octave patterns until you could hear them)
- Dispense with the exercise all together because it is not that useful?

I think I'll understand your position and your objection to my post better if you explain how you would apply it to a concrete situation like above.

[Tal_175]

How important is that and why?

If you could just play stuff that you like by ear why not just do that?

I think being a good jazz musician requires having internalized a large vocabulary over common harmonic situations that arise in standards. The internalized vocabulary elevates musical expression in ways that are quite unpredictable. One important improvisation tool is using the acquired vocabulary with harmonic intention. Practicing guide tones (in addition to vocabulary) helps one "get" the harmony of a new tune and informs how they might use their vocabulary. It's not the only way to work on a new tune but it is one common practice idea. Is that contrary to your experience?

[PickingMyEars]

Is this a matter of naming vs. just playing?

I've heard Patrick Bartley talk about that. How we obsess over naming and making everything logical... instead of just playing the material.

If that's the case, I am DEFINITELY guilty of that. Taking a break from the Jazz Guitar Forum helped me, until I started writing essays on Youtube

We have intellectually curious minds. Right now, I am totally fascinated with how rhythm pulls together everything I know. I wish we'd talk about rhythm as much as we talk about harmony. Many say that the study of rhythm is physical--learning by doing instead of explaining with words and labels. Maybe if the tides turned and we learned how to talk about music through the physicality of DOING and less with endless pages of text--like my essays--we'd be in a better place?

That said, it don't mean shit if we don't play what we talk about. Get the fundamentals, listen, play, and ask a couple of questions. But don't get stuck in the naming of things. Easier said than done. Easier to talk about this stuff than to REALLY play it. I'm saying that for myself here. Am I writing essay about not writing essays on things here?

[pauln]

Very long ago I was subject to a natural
"stranded on desert island music theory"
(learning and playing guitar all by ear)
- no chance to talk about musical ideas
- sounds aurally represented (internally)
- intuitively accessed rather than verbal

[Mick-7]

I think this is a bit silly, no one plays guitar completely by ear. When we start off, we learn the note names of the guitar strings, the names of chords, etc., etc. And even if you don't name the notes you play, you label them in some way, associate them with fretboard positions or patterns. Would you expect a classical guitarist to learn every classical piece in his repertoire by ear? Jazz can be just as complex harmonically.

I started out playing by ear, had no problem doing that with folk and blues music without instruction, but jazz was a different animal, I had trouble making sense of the chord progressions I was hearing, and learning theory helped me do that. It didn't make a huge difference to my single string playing because I could manage that pretty well by ear, but it greatly helped my chord accompaniment and chord melody playing.