What is your primary reference for practicing improvisation?

[ragman1]

I think I've only copied a solo once. Some years ago a friend asked me to take a solo on one of her songs in a show.

But this was with a very good band on a stage in front of a lively crowd. I didn't want to let her down or mess it up so I learned the song and got together a solo which I thought was okay.

When the time came I just played it note for note with a big smile. I can't pretend I was actually improvising although it looked like it. Which was fine by me :-)

[Mick-7]

Maybe I should change the title. I explained what I meant in the first post but not the title. The way posting polls works on the forum is you first write your description then add the poll. But that's not the order people see it obviously.

No problem, I just saw your clarification.

One of the reasons I've been thinking about this lately is something Pat Martino said about how he came up with his lines in Linear Expressions. He said he doesn't analyze why a line works, he just finds lines that he likes over a given chord and learns them. I mean something along these lines.

The question is, what does Pat means by "finds" the lines he likes. I suspect it means what I suggested in my previous post: take a musical phrase you've heard and see how it applies to the music you're playing - how does that phrase fit this songs harmony? After a while (probably much longer than you'd like ) you won't have to think about it, you can hear a phrase and immediately identify it's harmonic character.

[Tal_175]

The question is, what does Pat means by "finds" the lines he likes. I suspect it means what I suggested in my previous post: take a musical phrase you've heard and see how it applies to the music you're playing - how does my "melody" fit this songs harmony? After a while (probably much longer than you'd ) you won't have to think about it, you can hear a phrase and immediately identify it's harmonic character.

I don't think it's about the intrinsic harmonic character of a melody line in the case of Pat Martino but how it sounds over different harmonic situations. The line might be minor in character by itself but it'd still sound good in different ways over different chords.

[Mick-7]

I don't think it's about the intrinsic harmonic character of a melody line in the case of Pat Martino but how it sounds over different harmonic situations. The line might be minor in character by itself but it'd still sound good in different ways over different chords.

Yes, a phrase could have broad applications, I didn't mean to suggest its harmonic character would be precise. But would Pat have heard the line and immediately known how it would apply to the harmony or would he have to analyze it to know? I suspect he'd have to analyze it at first but later on he would just hear a line and know when to play it.

P.S. - Actually, now that I think about it, any time you want to get a new idea into your playing, whether melodic or harmonic, you have to figure out how and when to play it. So that's what you have to practice: what is this phrase, how do I play it and where (harmonically speaking) does it sound good?

[Tal_175]

Yes, a phrase could have broad applications, I didn't mean to suggest its harmonic character would be precise. But would Pat have heard the line and immediately known how it would apply to the harmony or would he have to analyze it to know? I suspect he'd have to analyze it at first but later on he would just hear a line and know when to play it.

This is where he talks about it. He says he acquired these lines "through experience" not analysis. (he says it around 33:03. He explains it more for another 30 seconds or so):

[Mick-7]

This is where he talks about it. He says he acquired these lines "through experience" not analysis. (he says it around 33:03. He explains it more for another 30 seconds or so):

That's awfully vague, I hope the rest of the lesson is clearer, sounds like the written examples are essential.

[princeplanet]

I clicked on all 4 options, not as a cop out, but because I really do feel that I use all 4 "references" when improvising, and in equal measures. I know guys that would click on the "aural" option, and with some sense of pride, because, after all, their heroes say they played that way. Trouble is, they don't sound like their heroes, in fact, they sound a bit lame to me. It's one of the reasons I decided to not go down that path. I ain't no Chet Baker...

[Christian Miller]

Improvisation requires getting good at generating melodic ideas in real time.

Is that a fact?

Maybe?

Tbh I think improvisation as creation ex nihilo is over hyped. Variation and distillation are underhyped.

Music is the thing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tal_175]

Is that a fact?

Maybe?

Tbh I think improvisation as creation ex nihilo is over hyped. Variation and distillation are underhyped.

Music is the thing.

I knew that statement was gonna come back to bite me, lol. It's hard to describe any discussion topic about music without elements of the description being vulnerable to scrutiny. I meant "generation of melodic ideas" in a loose way. A performance that was not worked out beforehand. Embellishments, variations etc are also musical ideas that one has to "generate" in the moment and not everyone does it the same way or at the same artistic level. At least I am using the word in this loose sense.

If one is using variation or other devices, they still work on these by relying on certain references, no?

[Christian Miller]

I knew that statement was gonna come back to bite me, lol. It's hard to describe any discussion topic about music without elements of the description being vulnerable to scrutiny. I meant "generation of melodic ideas" in a loose way. A performance that was not worked out beforehand. Embellishments, variations etc are also musical ideas that one has to "generate" in the moment and not everyone does it the same way or at the same artistic level. At least I am using the word in this loose sense.

If one is using variation or other devices, they still work on these by relying on certain references, no?

I don’t really know what this means tbh

Improvisation is … a word… a word people use… a bit like say, God. Or freedom. It’s hard to say if two people mean the same thing.

At the same time jazz has been saddled with this association with it, which I think was become a bit of a consuming preoccupation. This is a holdover from 20th century classical musicians being so fundamentally deskilled in the practical music making common in the vast majority of musical cultures, that they needed a special word to explain the sort of scoreless, informal and highly personal playing that jazz musicians did.

Thus improvisation. Oh it’s mysterious! How do those naturally gifted savants do it? (We don’t actually want to know, it’s not proper music. We have a Great literature, you see.)

Normal people (who are not classical musicians) improvise all the time socially and it’s not a big deal. We use commonplace cliches for the most part. Sometimes our stories and spiels are prepared and refined. We respond to what others say. Often our responses can be generic and obvious - but that doesn’t mean they have no value. Sometimes we may have a moment of insight, but these probably aren’t that common. Sometimes gifted speakers give public lectures off the top of their heads with no notes (but usually they are refining a version of a talk, right?)

What a regular non musician might improvise on an instrument (given the social permission) might be “noise”, but the process is just fine. In fact, the free improv people. - I studied a little with Keith Tippett - would see that as a legitimate form of music making.

The primary area of study for a genre or idiom of music, jazz, baroque, rock, Hindustani music, etc is with the material.

Everything is ultimately about repertoire. The melodic movements in a Raag. Lines on Stella. So on and so forth.

To practise improvisation is to practice improvisation. You just do it. That’s not to say there is nothing to study, no conditions or restraints that can be placed on it and so on, but it’s not something that can be done without, well, improvising. You start at the beginning and play until it is done.

If you edit it, or stop and practice or refine sections, it becomes some form of semi-composition, and that is common too. If it becomes completely pinned down - rare perhaps for jazz although things often crystallise intuitively - it becomes a composition. (Most classical musicians don’t compose either.) That’s as true for so called free music as it is for jazz or rock bands. I’ve worked compositionally with non idiomatic groups of varying traditional musical skill. The process is identical to working with a professional jazz group - or for that matter a youth theatre group. It’s the material that is different

But there is much preparation that goes into the art of improvisation that is not improvisation. This is, well, music.

I like John Mortensen’s term - ‘constructing music’. In jazz, this is a group thing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tal_175]

The primary area of study for a genre or idiom of music, jazz, baroque, rock, Hindustani music, etc is with the material.

Everything is ultimately about repertoire. The melodic movements in a Raag. Lines on Stella. So on and so forth.

To practise improvisation is to practice improvisation. You just do it. That’s not to say there is nothing to study, no conditions or restraints that can be placed on it and so on, but it’s not something that can be done without, well, improvising. You start at the beginning and play until it is done.

I am trying to interpret your post in the context of this thread. If I am understanding it correctly, you are saying that the references that are listed in the poll have been irrelevant to the activities you've been doing towards developing your improvisation skills. Is that right?
I mean, I understand the importance of idioms. But are you saying that the process of internalizing idioms is orthogonal to these references?

[Christian Miller]

I am trying to interpret your post in the context of this thread. If I am understanding it correctly, you are saying that the references that are listed in the poll have been irrelevant to the activities you've been doing towards developing your improvisation skills. Is that right?
I mean, I understand the importance of idioms. But are you saying that the process of internalizing idioms is orthogonal to these references?

Sorry I didn't see the poll on Tapatalk.

I don't think it's so easy to separate those things. Ear and muscle memory aren't separate. Theory neither.

You have to hear what you play, at least on a rhythmic level, but that's just generally true of playing anything.

I would say the aural side is the most important thing for most people to develop. If you don't have some of that, you will suck. There's no two ways about it, and I know many who will do anything to avoid working on it, so it's an obvious weak spot for many. But it's not everything.

Playing is a holistic activity. I can't break it down of myself. I can tell you what I practice and what I have practiced in the past, but that's not improvisation. Which is me on the spot going, BLAH.

Similarly, I think what I’m trying to say is that I don’t separate improvisation from studying music. Learning pieces, writing music on my instrument and in score. Listening etc etc

Immersing oneself in music is the most joyful thing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ragman1]

I don't think it really matters. There's a tune, you have to do a solo or two, so play it. Does it really matter whether you generate it from your knowledge and experience? Or include little things that you've gathered?

Obviously someone who basically plagiarises another player's solo isn't really doing what they should be doing but for most of us it's a combination of everything we've got in our repertoire, as it were, expressed in a personal way.

I see nothing wrong with that. And there'll always be people who are much better at it than others. C'est la vie, that applies to anything in life that needs skill. That's the way it is.

[JazzPadd]

This was difficult to answer. I put theory/knowledge half-heartedly, but that only gets things so far, just till the visual steps in, soon giving way to the aural. But all I really ever practice is tunes, and so improvisation is a moment in time within a tune. On the other hand maybe it’s motor memory, especially picking up the tempo.

Goals seem to matter. My goal is to play jazz spontaneously with others, so practicing is prep for that. But I also want to feel the sheer joy of navigating a path thru changes, so I need to know them well enough to start off, at least within the idiom of those I’m playing with, which brings things back to the knowledge.

But it isn’t about total mastery to do that effortlessly or to feel it intuitively; rather, it’s more like dancing on the precipice, and not knowing, or even caring, if one careens over the edge. That depends very much on who one is playing for, or with, and why, i.e., what are the expectations, which are really just limitations, which ironically seem necessary.

[ragman1]

Yes, improvising is walking a wire without a safety net but surely one shouldn't attempt it unless one knows what one's doing? You need to know the tune and know what to do otherwise you're going to fail or just look bad.

So don't do it unless you've got the whole thing clear in your mind and are confident in what you're doing. Which means preparation. Personally I wouldn't attempt it unless I'd got all that settled. There's no point in stumbling through something and feeling awful about it. What's the point?

[mr. beaumont]

Ive tried to answer this question at least 3 times now, and i can't.

[ragman1]

That's actually very interesting because you're a pretty good improviser. I suspect it's because you don't separate out the various components either. Either that or it's a largely unconscious process. And I think it has to be more or less unconscious because one can't be deliberately premeditating each note or phrase, it would become ridiculous.

[mr. beaumont]

Well thanks. Long way to go though.

Part of it is practice versus being actually in the moment...and I practice improvisation different ways. When I first learn a tune, there might be a lot more musical knowledge/theory involved, breaking a song down...but at some point ideas need to practice improvising by actually improvising, at which point the other three take precedent. Overall I'm trying to get away from too much "muscle memory" playing, but i also think you kind of need to get to the autopilot stage with a tune before you can take control back and really control/react/interact.

[ragman1]

Absolutely, the autopilot stage. With all the work put in beforehand. Let no one forget that :-)

[Tal_175]

I think we need to have better descriptions for these references which is also one of the things I was hoping would be discussed in this thread.

What does it mean to learn language towards improvisation by primarily using these references. Let me give a crack at it.

- Visual: For example improvisation around chord shapes, arpeggios. Achieved by working towards getting certain structures to mentally "light up" in realtime on the fretboard and play around them.
- Muscle memory: Improvisation based on using specific licks or melodic cells. In particular working on automating specific fingerings and getting good at applying them to various harmonic forms.
- Aural: Associating melodic ideas with different harmonic situations and getting good at making aurally driven variations by ear. You try to get good at letting go off the left brain while still being deliberate. In other words not playing hit and miss lines but hearing what you want to play.
- Theory/Knowledge: Building lines based on concepts and using harmonic and melodic devices documented in jazz literature. Eg. working on melodic minor arpeggios and applying them with altered scale references, or half step rules, or making lines by subbing #IVdim with minor ii V to III etc etc.

OK go easy on me, lol. There are obviously more things to add (or change) to these descriptions. Please do so or share your take on these references. Also obviously there is an interplay among these items. But I think they represent different pedagogical commitments to musical development. We may consciously or subconsciously prioritize one over the others.

[supersoul]

Consciously and for when I practice, I'd have to say that "muscle memory" best fits.
I try to learn tunes inside and out, so I can play the chords without having a brain fart wondering what's coming next. Much of that is just playing the chords over and over again. I'm also finding the rhythms that work, because those are almost as important.
As I go on with a tune, I'll have multiple ways of doing things. Occasionally I might lean on theory as a way of coming up with different, more snazzy ways of playing something. But it has to work and not sound like I'm trying to sound clever. I think I have a fair amount already internalized, anyway (can always know more, of course!).
I'll play the same tunes over and over again for weeks. Then I'll move on and probably forget them Relearning tunes always gives me a new perspective.
I don't think I really practice single note lines too much, it's more like the single notes emerge from the song as I learn it. Lately I've been thinking a lot about phrasing, but again that feels like it's coming out of the chord/rhythm continuum.

[ragman1]

Yes, that's the work beforehand rather than the auto stage.

[deacon Mark]

I answered that it was aural but now that I think about no one specific way reaches the top. If I know the tune really well and completely then aural may be more involved. For tunes I do not know then it can be both theory and visual shapes. The crazy thing is that even when I use aural and know the tune sometimes, I like to experiment with shapes at jumps that are not common. This is an old Howard Roberts approach to get out of thinking and playing the same way. Muscle memory is one thing, but I sort of think of that as just my normal licks and patterns I use for changes. Frankly in my case after a few times through the changes of tune I probably have run out of too much to say. That to me has been important in the last few years of playing. I dislike long solos from just about any instrument and player. Nice to see a player take 32 bars and play then jump to another.

Improvisation is a funny thing. The more and more you do it the less and less you tend to get involved with theory at least on any immediate level. It is all about trying to get and idea out on the changes without in my case falling on my ass.

[rpjazzguitar]

Very complicated question. I certainly would not recommend my approach. Over time, I got exposed to different things and they created layers of knowledge, a good deal of which is not organized.

So, for example, if the chord is C#m7b5, the note that comes to my mind first is G. I mean, I'm aware of the chord tones, the connection to major and melodic minor, that the chord is also an Em6 and a rootless A9 and all that, but G pops into my mind. If, otoh, the chord is Gm7b5, the note that pops into my head first is G. It's that bad. Of course, just because that's what pops up doesn't mean I have to play it.

At some point, now years ago, I decided to learn all the notes in the chords and scales I use, by name. So, I had to drill that. I then decided to learn 7th chord arpeggios all over the neck. I still drill them and they are in my playing to a fault. Same is true for earlier work I did running scales, which, frankly, I wish I'd never done. It created well worn ruts I can't avoid.

Then, I started practicing by setting IRealPro for 13 repeats, changing key every chorus. Improv and comping. If I flubbed a change, I'd go over it. I think that was helpful.

And, all along, I worked on scat-singing in my mind and playing that. Also, being relaxed enough with that process that I can do it more of the time.

If I could do it over from the beginning, I'd start with plenty of formal ear training. Then, forcing myself to do more transcription (or lifting, since writing it down seems less important) - with particular attention to chord subs in comping. No practice of scales in the usual order. One picking approach instead of trying to imitate a series of different teachers.

[pauln]

As others have noted, this is all pretty difficult to clearly discuss. I do think the categories are generally good in spite of having different meanings to individuals; but that's as always, right? I'll attempt to define and describe what they mean to me, which is ultimately a kind of hierarchy.

Visual/Muscle Memory
The visual/muscle memory aspect became a single thing, comprising the acquired accumulated correspondence between sight and touch, becoming the convergence of finger board geometry with the mechanics of fingering long ago. This metric relation became increasingly invisible to me as it further transformed into the abstract spatial representation component of my musical knowledge.

Musical Knowledge
My foundation of the instrument is the acquired perceptual convergence of aural-spatial relationships. The visual/muscle memory became the spatial component of this foundation as a sort of internal abstract space. The aural component is purely phenomenological and yet has inherited the complex mapping onto this space by which sounds I hear in my mind's ear, hear externally, or wish to be heard, seem to share position or co-locate in this space along with their particular invisible metrics of execution.

Aural
The musical knowledge level spontaneously presents contending musical ideas; candidates for expression. The aural level acts to choose among those which are made manifest based on and organised with respect to musical judgement.