-
Is this a "taboo" subject? If we hear a great studio recorded solo- say Lee Morgan's trumpet solo on "Moanin' " - and we compare it to the many live versions of his solo against the same tune, we hear how he often refers to sections of the studio solo, but never quite puts together a "live" solo that sounds as perfect as the studio version. I could make same the argument for a great number of famous soloists of the era (and beyond?).
Now, of course we allow for the obvious fact that studio recordings were to be permanent, and therefore treated with more preparation and care. Not to mention the rehearsals and the multiple takes etc. So perhaps it's no surprise that the solo performance for a studio recording will be better than various live recordings of the same tunes. I'm not talking about the quality of the recording, but of the playing.
Here's an argument I've heard, that the original solo became so well known that players were expected to repeat it (at least parts of it), which meant that the live solos could never feel as inspired or as "of the moment" when compared with the studio version. Or could it just be that the studio version was "composed"? We know that there are numerous examples of players attempting the same composed solo over numerous takes, so you gotta wonder how many famous solos were not really improvised. Sure, you could point to Bird's famous outtakes (all different) as examples to the contrary, but how common was that in the Bop era? Could they all do it?
And does that mean that soloists that could produce different successive takes of high quality were better improvisors? You'd think so, but if we go back to Bird as the gold standard for this type of discussion, could it be that he had devised a system where he could simply rearrange
the order in which to fit his well rehearsed pet devices? Looking at it in this way, you could argue that his solos are pre composed chunks that he was very skilful at joining up in real time to create the illusion of true through composition. It doesn't make him any less great as he did this better than anyone, perhaps even to this day, but it's just to question the nature of improvisation as opposed to composition.
I'd contend that there is a huge difference between memorizing an entire solo and performing it verbatim, versus memorizing dozens of ways to play bars of Dominant, Tonic, Diminished, Altered etc and fitting them together on the fly. The latter is still improvising (to me), but it's quite different to the way some people conceive what true Improvisation should be. For them it's probably closer to the idea of producing spontaneous original ideas you've never played before and playing them as freely as you would sing them. That's probably a higher level skill, but I'm not sure if it deserves more admiration, even from people like us on this forum who should be able to appreciate the difference (compared to laypeople?).
Will a trumpeter who has studied with Tristano for 30 years and plays unique phrases every time be able to play a better solo against Moanin' than Lee Morgan's? Or would it just be more admirable?Last edited by princeplanet; 10-01-2024 at 02:10 PM.
-
10-01-2024 01:30 AM
-
It's like there are two different goals. Parker and Morgan, the lines/licks/working a few things out people are focused on playing well executed ideas that sound good. The Tristano goal seems to be to play new ideas. At the end of the day 95% of the people listening can't tell a new idea from a lick you used a week ago, of that 5% who can tell you used the line already, maybe 1 person will care... my point being, that's a lot of effort to put into impressing the snobbiest most judgmental listener in the room.
They probably aren't even really listening anyway, just complaining to the bartender that their band is better and they should be the ones playing.
-
But as Jazz players, we do value improvisation, no? We know listeners can't always tell whether we're truly improvising or not, but in this age where there's no money to be made in bluffing, surely some of us (hopefully most?) are happy to put the time into learning improv skills because we know if we are improvising or not
. A listener might prefer our solos if they were pre composed, but that's no fun for the player.
I think most players, if they're honest, choose levels of improv risk depending on the occasion. Low risk for recordings, highest risk in rehearsals, and somewhere in between for live performances.
-
Yeah, I value improvisation, but Charlie Parker and Lee Morgan are improvising. Compiling licks is a kind of improvisation, I wonder if it's a better way to learn because you start with phrases. If all your improv comes from a foundation of phrasing, you might not end up in the draining stream of guitar noodling B.S. that over focusing on scales led me to.
-
I think it's important to listen to the alternate takes many CD's give us...you can easily hear that while solos on successive takes are different, there's also clear shapes and ideas to the solos that players are going for...improvisation isn't magic...so many great players had a plan going in, an outline, a sketch, whatever you want to call it.
-
Barry Harris said in one of his video classes that one should be able to repeat one's improvisation. I don't believe he meant weeks later, but at the time.
Which makes sense if you're building your improv with direction and certain ideas – you might be able to remember what you were thinking as you built it. This assumes a certain intellectual component of the solo, which probably not every soloist employs.
At this point in my development, it would be extremely rare for me to be able to repeat an 8-bar improvisation; more to the point, I probably wouldn't want to.
-
It isn't music, but it's improvisational: classroom teaching. After the inevitable period of panicky thrashing around, I eventually built a body of material for presenting common topics or leading discussions of literary works. On reflection, I recognized what I was doing: establishing an armature that was part "content" and part "delivery" and adapting each performance (that was another big recognition: teaching is a dramatic craft) to whatever variables might pop up (student questions, failure to get an expected response, my own expanded understanding), as well as recognizing a new presentational possibility on the fly. That's improv, brother.
My musical skills are not at pro-jazz levels, but I've been performing folky-swingy material every week for several decades, and when I sing a tune, I have that same armature-and-variation feeling--mostly with phrasing and tempo, but also with comping behind a soloist. I suspect that I'm not unusual in following that process.
-
Yes, even I do that and it took me a while to deal with the "impostor syndrome" it sometimes comes with. I've worked on my own devices over a number of years to the point where I can come up with 60 different solos for every tune, just by the way I can mix the order of the devices, the direction (up or down) and neck positions. This is before I even alter the phrasing, which of course provides endless variations. So if I were to go into a recording knowing there may be say 5 takes, I think I could easily prepare 5 different solo "plans", even to the point of rehearsing them. My band mates might even think that I had improvised more than I really had. Moreover, if I were gigging a regular residency where people might remember (yeah right) last weeks solo on Mr PC, I could easily work out in advance (by making a few notes) how to ensure a 2 month residency would not expose me to playing similar solos from week to week. Note I said that I could, but I probably wouldn't, again, because it would be no fun.
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
But I bet that once upon a time (in the Golden Era?) it might have been fun for some players to fool their peers and public into thinking they were improvising far more than they really were. If you have a handful of devices down cold, and a good enough memory to avoid repeating yourself over a long period of time, then perhaps that might even explain why a guy like Parker could be held to forensic scrutiny over various live recordings (Benedetti) and still leave us with the impression that he was weaving perfect, unique masterpiece solos night after night. OK, that may be a bit of a stretch, but we have to agree that the guy had a "system" that he got incredible mileage from! Let's remember his famous quote: "I can fit everything I know into 8 bars"....
-
I think this is something nobody really thought of. you blew your solo and if it sounded good, it was good.
-
I dunno, from what I've read the scene was fiercely competitive, wasn't there the story about some trumpeter who covered his hand with a cloth so that no-one could see how he was fingering? There was pressure to appear "magical" and players were protective of their methods, they may have shared the odd tip but they never gave too much away. Job security! Originally Posted by AllanAllen
On the other hand, guys like Bird got heavily wasted so often that it's hard to fathom that he could have always been mindfully aware of some system that would allow him to avoid repeating himself. A sober magician might have that together, but a heavily stoned sax player?
-
If good luck favors the well-prepared, so does good improvising.
-
Sounds like Freddy Keppard, he also turned down the opportunity to be the first person to record a jazz record, thinking people would steal his licks. Instead he gave that milestone to the whites only and racist Original Dixieland Jazz Band. Originally Posted by princeplanet
-
Some say Parker was so well prepared that he could improvise in his sleep, and with stories that abound relating to him being asleep on the bandstand and being poked when his turn to solo, this seems close to being literally true! Originally Posted by RLetson
-
Yes, I think it was him. Magicians didn't like other people discovering their tricks either... Originally Posted by AllanAllen
Sounds like Freddy Keppard, he also turned down the opportunity to be the first person to record a jazz record, thinking people would steal his licks. Instead he gave that milestone to the whites only and racist Original Dixieland Jazz Band.
-
Which Benedetti are you referring to pardon my ignorance. Originally Posted by princeplanet
-
Dean Benedetti:
Dean Benedetti - Wikipedia
-
... just giving this thread a poke to see if it can reignite further discussion...?
-
So it's obvious that great solos probably were derived from 1. a sketch, organization a step above just live blowing. But I agree that many solos seem to be so coherent that they were likely 2. even more thoroughly composed than just a sketch, while not necessarily being 100% written out and predetermined.
These 2 never played with such precision when just blowing, expecially Jimmy:
-
Charlie Parker used the same phrases repeatedly, but with incredible creativity, as can be heard on record and documented in the incredible Thomas Owen analysis. Is this a form of composition?
Thomas Owen analysis:
Charlie Parker Dissertation Volume II Thomas Owens 1974 : Thomas Owens : Free Download: Internet Archive
Common Charlie Parker phrases (motives) below:
Frequency of use of phrases (motives) in transcriptions below:
-
I believe I’ve read that during the swing era, especially in big band settings, it was common for players to have a feature solo that was kinda their Thing and was expected to be pretty much the same every time.
Most of the players coming up in the 40-60s would have been aware of that tradition and would have played with older players of that ethos. So it’s not surprising if that rubbed off.
another thing is that it’s a pragmatic choice for a player gigging every night - making the world anew every time is a tall order. Sometimes it’s just a Wednesday night in November on the job.
a third aspect is that you could argue that a tailor made solo, is part of what makes a song a song. You’re not just playing a Generic Ballad, you’re playing this particular song. This is something I’ve been used to coming from the pop and rock world - your Knopflers, Mays or Gilmours may vary the lead from night to night, but it is very much within the framework of the solo that belongs to that song.
-
I think you’re onto something here. Originally Posted by Average Joe
I haven’t been gigging very long, or terribly often and they all feel like Wednesday night in November. I’m more concerned about logistics than my creativity. I have solutions if the logistics go sour.
-
May I step out of jazz and reference Allman Brothers At Fillmore East? Considered by many a top live recording in that genre.
I have heard many recordings leading up to the performances on that record. Easy to compare as they did very similar sets during that period.
There was a definite progression in ideas coming together, individually and collectively.
I heard Mr. Martino say in a clinic to notice when the audience reacts to something you play. I heard him play at least 50 sets during my time in DC, he would pull from his bag of tricks from time to time.
Even Miles Davis said one will develop cliches.
-
When I was a kid my parents had an album by trumpeter Jonah Jones called, "Muted Jazz," which I used to listen to a lot. I thought his 'improvised' solos were magical. Then I saw him perform one of the same songs on TV, and his solo was identical. So, it was a composed solo rather than an improvised one. But it was still a great solo.
-
Jonah Jones was one of the swing era players Average Joe mentioned. From a time when they would play the hit solo live.
Reply With Quote
TW Doyle Tele
Yesterday, 06:17 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos