What is your primary reference for practicing improvisation?

[Mick-7]

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.

Actually, what you've said is only true of amateurs (l'm not using that term in a derogatory way). Experienced professionals don't have to know a tune to play it well or at least competently, except perhaps if it's an unusual tune with uncommon chord changes. If I'm unfamiliar with a tune, I can can do alright relying on my theoretical knowledge to improvise on it.

[Tal_175]

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.

Interesting. To me visual reference is a static notion, like the shape of an arpeggio, interval or a chord grip. Muscle memory consists of particular phrases that may, say, involve the notes around an arpeggio shape played in a particular way (particular order and rhythm). Same visual reference may be associated with many specific lines. Like when we first learned the A minor pentatonic box on the 5th fret versus all the licks that go with that shape.

[Mick-7]

Interesting. To me visual reference is a static notion, like the shape of an arpeggio, interval or a chord grip. Muscle memory consists of particular phrases that may, say, involve the notes around an arpeggio shape played in a particular way (particular order and rhythm). Same visual reference may be associated with many specific lines. Like when we first learned the A minor pentatonic box on the 5th fret versus all the licks that go with that shape.

So you couldn't play very well if you were blindfolded? I vaguely recall a thread here re: not looking at the fretboard when you play, don't recall the context.

[Tal_175]

So you couldn't play very well if you were blindfolded? I vaguely recall a thread here re: not looking at the fretboard when you play, don't recall the context.

I hardly ever look at the fretboard. To me visual is a mental representation of the fretboards geometry.

[Mick-7]

I hardly ever look at the fretboard. To me visual is a mental representation of the fretboards geometry.

o.k., but there's a very fine line between that and "muscle memory," I suspect you had to develop it get to the point where you no longer had to look at the fretboard to play well.

[emanresu]

There's this peculiar state of mind where you watch the strings, the notes, and SEE the sound. Sight and sound become kinda entangled.
But nah, this is fun when it happens at first but I don't care about vision at all. Playing with eyes was the worst feeling for me and that actually made me quit jazz for a long time.

[Tal_175]

o.k., but there's a very fine line between that and "muscle memory," I suspect you had to develop it get to the point where you no longer had to look at the fretboard to play well.

That's a good point. There is some relationship between muscle memory and mental visual image but I still think they are different. I can visualize a position but what I play within that position may or may not be lines that are in my muscle memory. At least that's how I use these terms, I can understand if these terms mean different things to different people.

Actually, I was just thinking about what I said in the last post, I exaggerated a bit about hardly ever looking at the fretboard. I look at the fretboard when I shift positions to reduce the chance of missing my landing point. Generally I don't need to look at the fretboard unless I need to shift. But I may still look at the fretboard sometimes out of having nothing else to look at. It's something one can work on as well. Sometimes I like practicing with my eyes closed because that makes me concentrate on the aural and (mental) visual references.

[pauln]

Just viewed the amazing video in Mark Kleinhaut's
CLASSICAL GUITAR LEFT HAND PRINCIPALS post.

It is quite clear that the operation and control of the hand is off the chart complex. Compared with the hand's ability to know where its parts are and how they are moving with multiple degrees of freedom within multiple dimensions (kinesthetic), the static geometry of the finger board is very simple. I can see why they became indistinguishable, or why others see the distinction as ambiguous, undetermined, or undefined.

Classical Guitar Left Hand Principals

[Mick-7]

Actually, I was just thinking about what I said in the last post, I exaggerated a bit about hardly ever looking at the fretboard.

I figured you did.

Just viewed the amazing video in Mark Kleinhaut's CLASSICAL GUITAR LEFT HAND PRINCIPALS post.

It is quite clear that the operation and control of the hand is off the chart complex. Compared with the hand's ability to know where its parts are and how they are moving with multiple degrees of freedom within multiple dimensions (kinesthetic), the static geometry of the finger board is very simple. I can see why they became indistinguishable, or why others see the distinction as ambiguous, undetermined, or undefined.

Scientists who have studied mind/body communication have found that it is essentially instantaneous. For example, in one experiment they had people think about doing a physical task and then do it, e.g., wiggle a finger. By measuring brainwave activity and muscular neuron activity at the same time, they found that the relevant muscular neurons fired before there was any brain activity that indicated a conscious intention to move the finger. Skinner headed behavioral scientists considered this to be more evidence that we are not genuinely conscious and therefore do not have free will ( ), but it's actually like the saying "the hand moves faster than the eye can see." However, in this case it's faster than the brain can see.

So you only think you're improvising, it's actually your body's muscle memory doing it.

[pauln]

Scientists who have studied mind/body communication have found that it is essentially instantaneous. For example, in one experiment they had people think about doing a physical task and then do it, e.g., wiggle a finger. By measuring brainwave activity and muscular neuron activity at the same time, they found that the relevant muscular neurons fired before there was any brain activity that indicated a conscious intention to move the finger. Skinner headed behavioral scientists considered this to be more evidence that we are not genuinely conscious and therefore do not have free will ( ), but it's actually like the saying "the hand moves faster than the eye can see." However, in this case it's faster than the brain can see.

So you only think you're improvising, it's actually your body's muscle memory doing it.

All perceptions are after the fact of their events or objects perceived. The propagation delays in the structures and systems through which perception is made manifest entail that our "conscious edge of the present" is really presenting what has already happened.
So yes, that implies acting (and interacting) in the physical world in advance of the conscious leading edge of the present.
The latest measures of neuron counts are in the mid 80 billions, with the synapses about three orders higher (trillions). With rates of neuron depolarization ("firing") up to 1000/s, the level of "activity" in the gap between the event and its perception is... well, it is the same level as after! Only you're completely unaware of it.
What you describe was discovered in the 18th century, well before the neurons were even a thing, waiting to be revealed with new slide stains for the optical scopes the beginning of the last century. Discovered were variations of experimental designs/conditions that made large differences in apparent response time. The modern convergence is that the brain-body division was too separate; the speed of reflexes should have been a clue that "local control" is not just faster but also would need some local directive "intelligence"; it is looking like "intelligence/consciousness" is distributed in the body more than (Western) thought before.

[princeplanet]

So most have selected the "aural" choice. This is interesting to me as it would appear most here see themselves as "ear" players, where as I thought such players were rare in Jazz. For all the ear players reading this, what kind of "ear" player are you? Can you improv against a tune which has changes that you're unfamiliar and express the changes convincingly? Or do you just kinda "plane" over the changes, kinda like a rock player might?

Just curious...

[Mick-7]

So most have selected the "aural" choice. This is interesting to me as it would appear most here see themselves as "ear" players, where as I thought such players were rare in Jazz. For all the ear players reading this, what kind of "ear" player are you? Can you improv against a tune which has changes that you're unfamiliar and express the changes convincingly? Or do you just kinda "plane" over the changes, kinda like a rock player might?

Just curious...

Actually, we clarified earlier in this conversation that we're describing the strategies we use to practice improvisation, which may be (probably are) different than those we use when we're actually improvising. For me, improvising in real time is almost entirely an aural process - listening intently and responding to what I'm hearing. However, when I'm practicing improvisation, I'll be considering theoretical and mechanical aspects of playing too.

Can you improv against a tune which has changes that you're unfamiliar and express the changes convincingly?

There's "unfamiliar" and then there's "uncommon." The vast majority of standards have conventional, recognizable chord changes, which can be successfully navigated by experienced "ear" players. However, they'll probably need to rely on theory/musical knowledge to navigate chord changes that are both unfamiliar and uncommon.

[princeplanet]

Actually, we clarified earlier in this conversation that we're describing the strategies we use to practice improvisation, which may be (probably are) different than those we use when we're actually improvising. For me, improvising in real time is almost entirely an aural process - listening intently and responding to what I'm hearing. However, when I'm practicing improvisation, I'll be considering theoretical and mechanical aspects of playing too.



There's "unfamiliar" and then there's "uncommon." The vast majority of standards have conventional, recognizable chord changes, which can be successfully navigated by experienced "ear" players. However, they'll probably need to rely on theory/musical knowledge to navigate chord changes that are both unfamiliar and uncommon.

Gotcha, but my question was for those that actually practice improv by ear only. If I could get as good as, say Cannonball Adderley, by just following where my ear takes me, it would be wonderful. Playing like Eric Clapton by ear is easy, I did that when I was 14, and when I turned to Jazz I thought it might be a similar process! Someone should have warned me...

[pauln]

So most have selected the "aural" choice. This is interesting to me as it would appear most here see themselves as "ear" players, where as I thought such players were rare in Jazz. For all the ear players reading this, what kind of "ear" player are you? Can you improv against a tune which has changes that you're unfamiliar and express the changes convincingly? Or do you just kinda "plane" over the changes, kinda like a rock player might?

Just curious...

I've done everything by ear since day one on the instrument, but what really made the transition into what you're asking about was being the host band guitarist for a weekly four hour jam. Routinely playing tunes I'd never heard with people I'd just met did that.

[Mick-7]

Gotcha, but my question was for those that actually practice improv by ear only. If I could get as good as, say Cannonball Adderley, by just following where my ear takes me, it would be wonderful. Playing like Eric Clapton by ear is easy, I did that when I was 14, and when I turned to Jazz I thought it might be a similar process! Someone should have warned me...

Well, obviously jazz lines are more complicated but the more you try to play what you hear, the better you'll get at it. However, it would not be productive to spend all your time on that. And of course horn players don't have to bother with playing chords.

[Tal_175]

Well, obviously jazz lines are more complicated but the more you try to play what you hear, the better you'll get at it. However, it would not be productive to spend all your time on that. And of course horn players don't have to bother with playing chords.

Horn players do play the chords.

[Bobby Timmons]

Imo, if you can hear then there's no reason not to use theory to expand and solidify your playing.

If you can hear, then using theory or other frameworks couldn't ever be a drawback because you can determine if the devices sound good or not once executed. You can mold them the way you want using your ear. You can recognize devices that players use. And once you get command of them, they get in your ear and you can just execute them using your ear during play anyway. Plus, you can always choose to focus on playing by ear if you want, theory never prevents that.

The only explanation for avoiding theory would be if you couldn't hear. :P

[AllanAllen]

Horn players do play the chords.

Yeah, that's technically correct, they play the chords (because chords are arpeggios) but they don't play chords (multiple notes simultaneously). That was Mick's point.

You know how we comp 80-90% of the time and focus our studies on comping accordingly (LOL), horn players don't have to do that, it's all single notes for them.

[Tal_175]

Yeah, that's technically correct, they play the chords (because chords are arpeggios) but they don't play chords (multiple notes simultaneously). That was Mick's point.

You know how we comp 80-90% of the time and focus our studies on comping accordingly (LOL), horn players don't have to do that, it's all single notes for them.

That's how they play chords and learn to hear them. I get that it's not comping but the context is practicing improvisation. I mean playing the changes is also an important part of how jazz pianists' and guitarists' play regardless of their comping duties.

[princeplanet]

Horn players do play the chords.

Indeed! Of course, Stitt was not pulling this outta his ass (or "hearing" it as a unique never-played-before line). He worked out his devices and practiced them in various ways and may have varied the way he chained them together, but at those tempi, he was clearly not inventing these lines from scratch. He's not really playing "what he hears", he's hearing what he knows, which means he's playing what he knows. At least in the main. I think this is true of most of the greats, and I think it's important that novices are made aware of this, otherwise they'd be too intimidated to persist with learning Jazz.

That's not to say that there aren't genuine freaks out there that possibly can pull crazy hip lines from thin air, uniquely and forever. But most players with their recorded history show us that, upon analysis, at best they're creating the illusion they're doing this. Even Parker.

[AllanAllen]

I get it but I still don't know what that means in the context of practicing improvisation. I mean playing the changes is also an important part of how jazz pianists' and guitarists' play.

I think Mick's point about chords is that it's easier for a horn player like CannonBall to play by ear because he doesn't have to learn how to comp. So, that time we spend learning to comp can be dedicated to ear training or more single note playing.

So while horn players may know the notes of chords and outline them, they don't have to dedicate any time to the technical aspect of playing chords because they can't.

Then I got a tongue in cheek about everyone's practice routine being lopsided and focusing most of our effort on the thing we do the least at gigs.

[pamosmusic]

Horn players do play the chords.

Also interesting question … without the name of the tune and the chord symbols, would you know what the changes were?

Take a gander at that third line … c triad, alright … D F A Eb … a brief pause and then a B … C triad into an Eb diminished … scale run down from B into a C triad.

I don’t think I would.

I think if you HEARD it that might be a different story. This is an aspect of jazz that I think is kind of close to alchemy or something, honestly. He’s playing the harmonic shapes and the patterns of motion and rest (Eb dim over A7 makes no sense, but Eb dim going to Dm certainly does, for example). But when we say “wow he’s nailing the changes” it’s almost frequently not true, in the narrow sense of actually outlining the chords in any theoretically useful way.

[Tal_175]

Also interesting question … without the name of the tune and the chord symbols, would you know what the changes were?

I would in some bars. For example in the last bar the descending G bebop scale is played over Dmin7- G7. Coincidence? There are other obvious examples (quite a few actually if you check out the other ii-V's). In some cases, you may reduce to options down to a few choices. Less than a few if you studied the player's vocabulary. But the important point is that the lines clearly indicate some sort of awareness of the next chord in the form.

[pamosmusic]

He's not really playing "what he hears", he's hearing what he knows, which means he's playing what he knows.

Thats a nice way of putting it

[Tal_175]

I think Mick's point about chords is that it's easier for a horn player like CannonBall to play by ear because he doesn't have to learn how to comp. So, that time we spend learning to comp can be dedicated to ear training or more single note playing.

So while horn players may know the notes of chords and outline them, they don't have to dedicate any time to the technical aspect of playing chords because they can't.

Then I got a tongue in cheek about everyone's practice routine being lopsided and focusing most of our effort on the thing we do the least at gigs.

That's probably why horn players are generally more skilled improvisers than guitarists both technically and artistically. Their instruments are also more expressive for playing single notes than guitar. But the bar they reach is not just making the changes. That's just a basic skill. A hard one to learn but that's just a foundation for the jazz style. There are different levels of playing the changes.

Even when it comes to jazz guitarists, most people don't admire Charlie Christian, Wes Montgomery, Grant Greene primary for their comping skills. There are obviously great guitar and piano compers but even their cases, most of them stand out because of their improvisation poweress which is what most jazz listeners pay attention to it seems.