What is your primary reference for practicing improvisation?

[Tal_175]

As I said, I understand the individual terms (visual, theory, muscle memory, aural), but I can't see how one can be more primary than another, nor can I see how for a jazz musician "practicing" and "practicing for improvisation" are two different things. It seems to me that you're trying to make a new question out of the old chestnuts "what do you practice" and "what do you think about when you're actually playing/improvising" by somehow making it more structured or granular, but it doesn't strike me as opening the door to any information that the chestnuts wouldn't yield. Or it's either over my head or, as you say, orthogonal to it. If the poll had an option for "not sure, but probably something other than this" I think I'd know what to pick.

These are good points. I don't have a clear answer either. But I think different activities I do during a practice session implicitly or explicitly prioritize one of these references over the others (most of the time). There are also certain methodologies (like the Herb Ellis' approach to shape based lines over tunes) that use one of the references as the main engine to elevate the others.

[Mick-7]

Attachment 118300

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.

Actually, all the notes he plays in those two bars (bars 11 & 12) are in the E harmonic minor scale - and in bars 9 & 10 for that matter. And the next few measures are entirely Gm except for 1 note (Ab).... so when I start to transcribe it, I'll be thinking, this will be piece of cake, the tune has only 4 chords!

[rpjazzguitar]

[QUOTE=Mick-7;1378518]Attachment 118300



Actually, all the notes he plays in those two bars (bars 11 & 12) are in the E harmonic minor scale - and in bars 9 & 10 for that matter. And the next few measures are entirely Gm except for 1 note (Ab).... so when I start to transcribe it, I'll be thinking, this will be piece of cake, the tune has only 4 chords! [/QUOTE

He plays an F and D on that line, which aren't in E HM. But, it's close. I'd guess, without any evidence, that he's just thinking Key of C and a few passing notes - which may be played on the beat.

[pamosmusic]

Attachment 118300



Actually, all the notes he plays in those two bars (bars 11 & 12) are in the E harmonic minor scale - and in bars 9 & 10 for that matter. And the next few measures are entirely Gm except for 1 note (Ab).... so when I start to transcribe it, I'll be thinking, this will be piece of cake, the tune has only 4 chords!

Right and this information would do nothing at all to help you come to the conclusion that he’s playing two turnarounds in C major

[Mick-7]

Attachment 118300

Actually, all the notes he plays in those two bars (bars 11 & 12) are in the E harmonic minor scale - and in bars 9 & 10 for that matter. And the next few measures are entirely Gm except for 1 note (Ab).... so when I start to transcribe it, I'll be thinking, this will be piece of cake, the tune has only 4 chords!

He plays an F and D on that line, which aren't in E HM. But, it's close. I'd guess, without any evidence, that he's just thinking Key of C and a few passing notes - which may be played on the beat.

Just make it Em then - natural and harmonic (as in the final two bars), and G minor over the G7 and the chords that follow it. But my point was that it's a minimalist approach to harmony.

[Tal_175]

Just make it Em then - natural and harmonic (as in the final two bars), and G minor over the G7 and the chords that follow it. But my point was that it's a minimalist approach to harmony.

I don't think that's a very informative way of looking at jazz vocabulary.
Let's take bar 61 and the next bar.

Over Gmin- C7:
E G C (c min triad arpeggio in first inversion) A Bb G E C (Descending C7 arpeggio with a half note approach)

Next bar Fmaj Bb7:
F G A (F maj outline of sorts) Bb C Ab F D (Descending Dmin7b5 arpeggio with an approach. ie arpeggio from the 3th of a dominant chord).

These are all chord outline devices used commonly in bebop. Yes, you can see these just as C major scale or E minor scale with some passing notes but I'd say that would be not very useful. Every nuance of the playing of any artist or a style of music would be lost if one just sees them as the home scale.

[Mick-7]

I don't think that's a very informative way of looking at jazz vocabulary.
Let's take bar 61 and the next bar.

Over Gmin- C7:
E G C (c min triad arpeggio in first inversion) A Bb G E C (Descending C7 arpeggio with a half not approach)

Next bar Fmaj Bb7:
F G A (F maj outline of sorts) Bb C Ab F D (Descending Dmin7b5 arpeggio with an approach. ie arpeggio from the 3th of a dominant chord).

These are all chord outline devices used commonly in bebop. Yes you can see these just as C major scale or E minor scale with some passing notes but I'd say that would be not very useful. Every artist and style of music would end up in the same bucket.

It is helpful if you play by ear, scales are a basic reference, your vocabulary is not a product of theoretical analysis. We don't all think like Barry Harris.

[Tal_175]

It is helpful if you play by ear, scales are a basic reference, your vocabulary is not a product of theoretical analysis. We don't all think like Barry Harris.

It's seems like we are talking over each other now. I was responding to your conclusion about the transcription being that it's a"minimalist approach to harmony" because he is basically playing E minor of sorts. That's not what I see. What I see is he is playing the changes in almost every bar.

[pamosmusic]

It is helpful if you play by ear, scales are a basic reference, your vocabulary is not a product of theoretical analysis. We don't all think like Barry Harris.

I think he’s saying that the scales you referenced bear no resemblance to the actual movement of the tune in those measures.

you might not be able to tell what the underlying changes are in a section just from looking at the page but you can discern harmonic movement and voiceleading from
what Tal described. The fact that I could make a line with those same components based on his description means it’s probably a decent one.

you’d be hard pressed to play E harmonic minor into Gm and get anything resembling a turnaround in C.

[Cunamara]

Hmm. Practicing rather than performing? Usually that's theory related (on a good day). I often start with identifying rows of guide tones and following them through the song; examining how the melody relates to the chord(s) in each bar; considering chords and substitute chords with their related scales and arpeggios...

Some days I just noodle and play fragments of songs or no song at all. Probably more days than my ego will admit to. However, some of the best songs I have written have come about this way.

[Bobby Timmons]

It is helpful if you play by ear, scales are a basic reference, your vocabulary is not a product of theoretical analysis. We don't all think like Barry Harris.

You're mad at theory.

[wolflen]

Some whit, perhaps Will Rogers, said something like, "It's not that people know what they like, it's that they like what they know."

Two more relevant quotes from him:

"It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so."

"If you want to be successful, it's just this simple: Know what you are doing. Love what you are doing. And believe in what you are doing."

Re: "he's hearing what he knows," thing is, he may not know that he knows it, that is, your best solos are the "channeled" ones that surprise you, when you play something that you've never played before and perhaps didn't even know you could play.

this is a repeated theme in my musical life..two or more unrelated studies meet during an improv solo..and my mind wants to say.."Hey!! Stop..what did I just play.."

So if questioned..I can say..I don't know how I played that..or If I can play it again. I would have to study my own playing to know what I just played.

I often dismiss the term "talent" when some hear me play..to me talent is exploring a subject and internalizing it and expounding on it beyond the very basic information about the subject first obtained.

In my case..its the practice..until it sinks in...and sometime..IF it sinks in

[Mick-7]

It's seems like we are talking over each other now. I was responding to your conclusion about the transcription being that it's a"minimalist approach to harmony" because he is basically playing E minor of sorts. That's not what I see. What I see is he is playing the changes in almost every bar.

Playing the changes? Then you'd be able to answer Yes to the question that Peter posed? That is: "without the name of the tune and the chord symbols, would you know what the changes were?"

He is playing the relevant scale for each chord set. For example, in the first two bars, he plays a B Major scale over C#m7/F#7; plays a Bb Major/C minor scale over Cm7/F7 (starts it early over the F#7); plays A major over Bm7/E7; etc. He plays the corresponding scales throughout, with occasional non-diatonic notes that are usually resolved to diatonic ones, e.g., C# >C over D7.

I'll admit that "minimalist" is an exaggeration but he is certainly not outlining the chord changes.

I think he’s saying that the scales you referenced bear no resemblance to the actual movement of the tune in those measures.

you’d be hard pressed to play E harmonic minor into Gm and get anything resembling a turnaround in C.

Actually, the measures I referenced, no. 11-13, resolve to the IV chord, F Major, and every note he played is in the Gm scale (dorian/harmonic).

Stitt's playing appears to be scale based but I have not listened to enough of his work to say for sure.

[pamosmusic]

Actually, the measures I referenced, no. 11-13, resolve to the IV chord, F Major, and every note he played is in the Gm scale (natural/harmonic).

Honestly man, I have no clue what you're after with this one.

E harmonic minor in 9-10, then G natural/harmonic minor in 9-13 resolving to an F chord?

I mean ... m. 13 (the one that resolves to the F) there's an E natural. So like ... definitely not natural or harmonic minor. Wouldn't it be easier just to see that as the C7 that it's actually spelling there?

I couldn't possibly get any use out of generalizing that much. But I guess that's not really my business if it's helping you. Some context on how it's helping might shed some light.

[Mick-7]

this is a repeated theme in my musical life..two or more unrelated studies meet during an improv solo..and my mind wants to say.."Hey!! Stop..what did I just play.."

So if questioned..I can say..I don't know how I played that..or If I can play it again. I would have to study my own playing to know what I just played.

I often dismiss the term "talent" when some hear me play..to me talent is exploring a subject and internalizing it and expounding on it beyond the very basic information about the subject first obtained.

In my case..its the practice..until it sinks in...and sometime..IF it sinks in

This is a good reason to record your improvising sessions, if you play it back and hear something really good (for a change ), you can identify and expand on it.

[pamosmusic]

The chords in bars 11-13 are: Em-A7/Dm-G7/Gm-C7/F - etc. Every note he plays is in the G natural or harmonic minor scale - oh, I missed the B nat. over the Dm chord but otherwise.... I was not referring to bars 9 & 10.

Also the multiple E naturals.

I guess I'm also not really sure how calling this G harmonic minor resolving to F would be useful, even if it were a G harmonic minor scale.

And you'd mentioned earlier that 9-10 were E harmonic minor. Point taken that you're not talking about it now, but I'm no clearer on that one than on this.

[Mick-7]

Also the multiple E naturals.

I guess I'm also not really sure how calling this G harmonic minor resolving to F would be useful, even if it were a G harmonic minor scale.

And you'd mentioned earlier that 9-10 were E harmonic minor. Point taken that you're not talking about it now, but I'm no clearer on that one than on this.

Sorry, didn't mean to get lost in the weeds with this, but I think of the minor scale in practice as comprising the dorian (I mistakingly said natural minor), harmonic and melodic forms, which includes the b6th & nat. 6th, and b7th & #7th - and you could throw in the b5 & b9th for the altered IIm chord (phrygian).

I couldn't possibly get any use out of generalizing that much. But I guess that's not really my business if it's helping you. Some context on how it's helping might shed some light.

As I implied earlier, this approach is one of using scales as a general reference, using one or two scales for a series of chords, and it's more applicable as a harmonic device, e.g., using chord forms derived from, say, the melodic minor scale.

[pamosmusic]

Sorry, didn't mean to get lost in the weeds with this, but I think of the minor scale in practice as comprising the natural, harmonic and melodic forms, which includes the b6th & nat. 6th, and b7th & #7th - and you could throw in the b5 & 9th for the altered IIm7b5 (phrygian).

lol ... so

G Ab A Bb C Db D Eb E F F#

Which is literally all the notes except for B?

Must be lots of stuff in Gm.

[Mick-7]

lol ... so

G Ab A Bb C Db D Eb E F F#

Which is literally all the notes except for B?

Must be lots of stuff in Gm.

Which of those notes I play will of course depend on the chords and their function: Im, IIm7, IIm7b5, etc. My ear will tell me which are or are not appropriate.

[pamosmusic]

Which of those notes I play will of course depend on the chords and their function: Im, IIm7, IIm7b5, etc. My ear will tell me which are or are not appropriate.

Well, good thing you have that scale there so you know not to play a B natural.

[pamosmusic]

Actually, the twelve tone scale is the scale I reference the most, more than any other.

[Tal_175]

Playing the changes? Then you'd be able to answer Yes to the question that Peter posed? That is: "without the name of the tune and the chord symbols, would you know what the changes were?"

He is playing the relevant scale for each chord set. For example, in the first two bars, he plays a B Major scale over C#m7/F#7; plays a Bb Major/C minor scale over Cm7/F7 (starts it early over the F#7); plays A major over Bm7/E7; etc. He plays the corresponding scales throughout, with occasional non-diatonic notes that are usually resolved to diatonic ones, e.g., C# >C over D7.

I'll admit that "minimalist" is an exaggeration but he is certainly not outlining the chord changes.
.

I think I already answered these questions in my earlier posts (#106 and #95). I won't repeat myself but I don't think you know what outlining changes mean in jazz.

When one plays descending F#-F-E-D#-C over F#7 apparently you see/hear Bmajor scale (the second bar), whereas to me that's one way of outlining the F#7 chord.
Or to you a descending Dmin7b5 arpeggio over Bb7 (as explained in my post #106) then would just be running Eb major scale whereas that's very clearly an Bb9 chord outline to me. I would actually play that voicing if I was comping as well. When I play Dmin7b5 chord over Bb7, I don't hear that I'm playing Eb major, that is the same when I outline the chord, I hear Bb9. But to you all that nuance collapses into one approximate scale over a bunch of chords.

[pamosmusic]

I think I already answered these questions in my earlier posts (#106 and #95). I won't repeat myself but I don't think you know what outlining changes mean in jazz.

When one plays descending F#-F-E-D#-C over F#7 you see/hear Bmajor scale (the second bar), whereas to me that's one way of outlining the F#7 chord.
Or to you a descending Dmin7b5 arpeggio over Bb7 (as explained in my post #106) then would be just Eb major scale whereas that's very clearly an Bb9 chord outline to me. I would actually play that voicing if I was comping as well. When I play Dmin7b5 chord over Bb7, I don't hear that I'm playing Eb major, that is the same when I outline the chord, I hear Bb9. But to you all that nuance collapses into one approximate scale.

For what it’s worth, this is sort of what I meant when I said it’s sort of jazz alchemy … it IS just a B major scale. It’s not really a way of outlining an F#7 chord … except that when you hear him, it sounds like it is. And it probably would sound like F#7 even without the accompaniment. We know that that passing note is a way of making that happen.

It’s super interesting. Accents and rhythmic placement turn it into “playing the changes” but on its own it’s really not.

Knowing that it’s an F#7 relies on some prior knowledge. Like I could tell you that m.9-12 are a turnaround but it would take knowing that Ebdim is a great second chord in place of that A7. And I probably couldn’t tell from 9-10 alone. From 11-12 it becomes a little clearer that it’s two turnarounds, at which point I go “oh hey maybe rhythm changes?” And suddenly I have a heuristic for the whole thing.

(It also helps that, when you say it’s a B major scale outlining F#7, you can check back and it makes some sense in context. Can’t say the same of G meta minor but also with a B, or whatever)

[Tal_175]

For what it’s worth, this is sort of what I meant when I said it’s sort of jazz alchemy … it IS just a B major scale. It’s not really a way of outlining an F#7 chord … except that when you hear him, it sounds like it is. And it probably would sound like F#7 even without the accompaniment. We know that that passing note is a way of making that happen.

Did you watch the part of the Gary Burton improv class video where he gives students feedback. A common criticism he as to many students is he couldn't hear the harmony in their solos. Likewise he praises the performances of students who could outline the harmony sufficiently, for example at 1:41:31:

My point is, if a student played that exact Sonny Stitt's solo over the changes of The Eternal Triangle I don't think Gary Burton would've criticized the student for not outlining the harmony. If he didn't know the tune and (since he still had perfect pitch at the time) he wrote down the changes based on the solo, I agree with you that he probably wouldn't have written down the RealBook chart changes of the tune. It would have been a reasonable realization of the harmony however.

[pamosmusic]

Did you watch the part of the Gary Burton improv class video where he gives students feedback. A common criticism he as to many students is he couldn't hear the harmony in their solos. Likewise he praises the performances of students who could outline the harmony sufficiently, for example at 1:41:31:

My point is, if a student played that exact Sonny Stitt's solo over the changes of The Eternal Triangle I don't think Gary Burton would've criticized the student for not outlining the harmony. If he didn't know the tune and (since he still had perfect pitch at the time) he wrote down the changes based on the solo, I agree with you that he probably wouldn't have written down the RealBook chart changes of the tune. It would have been a reasonable realization of the harmony however.

Haven't watched it yet, but sure. And I think probably if it was a good student, then sure. But if it was not a great student, then maybe not? I don't know. It would be an interesting experiment. Like if you play the midi off a finale file of that transcription, can you hear the changes in it?

I'll also say that Sonny's is a really good example, but here are two more. Not to derail the thread, but this is super interesting. I'd be curious if someone could get the changes off of one of these solos.

an experiment 1 - Score.pdf - Google Drive
an experiment 2 - Score.pdf - Google Drive

Also I'm not really arguing with you. It's just very interesting to me. . Sonny is absolutely playing the changes, but it's in a way more subtle way then we tend to think. I had a lesson with this student last night -- blues and rock dude, but a really hard worker and really interested. We've done tons of work with scales and voiceleading triads and learning blues licks off records, and he's been getting into some seventh chord arpeggios lately. So last night, we were doing some little perpetual motion exercises -- quarter notes, voiceleading those arpeggios through a blues in A. But once he got that, I didn't go into eighth notes or whatever, I had him do three notes a bar, then half notes, then whole notes so that we were just doing a guide tone line. From there we talked about the thirds and sevenths, about how little you have to play when you're being specific, how you can even play "non chord tones" like the ninth or something from time to time and still hear the changes clear as a bell when you're leaning on those guide tones more often than not. It's really interesting. "Outlining" the changes is a bit of a misnomer because you really don't need to see the whole shape of them. It's cool stuff.