Real improvisation

[Tal_175]

Riffs and motifs can't be vocabulary? I'll admit, when you guys get into all the minutia of verbally defining music, I get twisted up. The link I posted, he takes a part of the head, composed by Sonny Rollins, and creates an entire improvisation off it. I thought this is exactly what we are supposed to do when we learn jazz vocabulary.

They function in the opposite ways. Riffs and motifs are repeated to establish the idea in listeners ears so that they can follow how the idea is developed (or notice when a new idea is introduced). Whereas vocabulary works best when it's disguised or buried into a bigger melodic idea. Of course you can incorporate a riff into your vocabulary. But whether a phrase is an element of a player's vocabulary or a theme depends on its function in the context IMO.

[equenda]

I think a lot about it lately.
There are musicians who repeat their musical phrases. It is often the case that these phrases are repeated in different tunes.
But there are also brilliant musicians who are so creative that they create new phrases all the time.
What is this dependent on?

To respond to what you write I have to ask a question: "Do you think that a great Jazz Musician like Oscar Peterson, Dexter Gordon, Dizzy Gillespie, Bill Evans, George Benson, Wynton Marsalis, Kenny Barron, Barney Kessel, George Benson, Benny Golson, Milt Jackson... (the list is almost infinite...), after having played for TENS of THOUSANDS of hours in concerts on all continents, during one of their solos can think: "Wow! This thing I played now I really didn't expect it!......."

Do you think it's possible??

Maybe a beginner "creates" something new but a GREAT JAZZ MUSICIAN doesn't.
If you believe it's possible then you can believe that the magician did NOT expect to find the rabbit in the hat....

Ettore

[kris]

Scofield played thousands of concerts-this is a brilliant guitarist.
Maybe a greater meaning would have compared his solos, but from different versions of the same tune.

[kris]

To respond to what you write I have to ask a question: "Do you think that a great Jazz Musician like Oscar Peterson, Dexter Gordon, Dizzy Gillespie, Bill Evans, George Benson, Wynton Marsalis, Kenny Barron, Barney Kessel, George Benson, Benny Golson, Milt Jackson... (the list is almost infinite...), after having played for TENS of THOUSANDS of hours in concerts on all continents, during one of their solos can think: "Wow! This thing I played now I really didn't expect it!......."

Do you think it's possible??

Maybe a beginner "creates" something new but a GREAT JAZZ MUSICIAN doesn't.
If you believe it's possible then you can believe that the magician did NOT expect to find the rabbit in the hat....

Ettore

This meant that they play the same on their albums ?
The masters recorded with various musicians and cooperated creatively.
This is probably the essence of jazz.

[lawson-stone]

I have most of the albums recorded by Scofield.
I think this is one of the most creative jazz guitarists.
He does not repeat his phrases, but he processes them creatively, which is why I listen to his guitar playing with interest.

I agree-and really, what makes me instantly recognize Scofield is not the notes or phrases, but his tone and "touch." Another who I spot that way is Kenny Burrell. The "voice" is what I notice, not the lines or phrases. Scofield also has certain common devices like "almost" octaves (lower not is off a half-step) but he doesn't use them in predictable ways.

[pamosmusic]

They function in the opposite ways. Riffs and motifs are repeated to establish the idea in listeners ears so that they can follow how the idea is developed (or notice when a new idea is introduced). Whereas vocabulary works best when it's disguised or buried into a bigger melodic idea. Of course you can incorporate a riff into your vocabulary. But whether a phrase is an element of a player's vocabulary or a theme depends on its function in the context IMO.

We've had this back and forth before ... for clarity, I think this is the example I settled on the last time, that worked for both of us.

Solo at 0:54 ... he's riffing or playing on that motif until 1:04 when he drops into what Tal is I think calling "vocabulary." At 1:08 he's back to the riff and at 1:19 back to the "vocabulary." I usually call it "the bop" as opposed to the "riff" and use vocabulary as a more general term. Which I think is probably where Allan is coming from too.

Obviously the lines between these things are not always so clear, but in this solo you can hear him really obviously switching between these distinct 'modes' of playing or something.

Another really good one is Grant Green on any blues. You can hear him at the beginning of a four-bar phrase just playing his blues stuff, and then he brings in more sophisticated rhythmic ideas or bop language or some other means of building tension when he gets to the end of the phrase and wants to push you into the next. It's cool listening to the way people deploy these tools.

[lawson-stone]

That sounds right. I’m probably quite a licks player but we have a different standard for spontaneity in music that doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Like someone who’s extremely fluent should be constantly inventing.

But thinking about language again — of course you learn and say things you’ve never said before. BUT — that’s usually recombining simple words and phrases and using them to illustrate interesting and original thoughts. Honestly I’ve spent a lot of time as a writer and you learn pretty quickly that the thing you think needs to be said isn’t actually all that original, then you have to learn to not particularly care.

And on a related note, it’s not that often that fluent speakers pick up new words and less often that they start using them in conversation. The new words we actually use are almost always utilitarian — a word for that thing in your car that keeps breaking, a term for the thing you went to the doctor for last week, what it’s called when you chop onions that way. Not to mention we don’t just stumble on them — we encounter them somewhere, often from reading, but more often because someone else said them and we were listening.

I would also say that for most people a conversation partner’s vocabulary is the least interesting part of talking to them.

I would mildly disagree because the analogy of language isn't between casual conversation and a jazz solo. You say people don't go looking for words, but in fact writers do exactly that. Writers are constantly striving to discover fresh expressions, new analogies, compelling metaphors, the works. I am only modestly published, but I am a very frequent lecturer, thus a professional language-user, and I'm always on the hunt for fresher, better, more forcible, more penetrating ways to express myself. And yes, I comb through other writings looking for stuff, I keep a journal of words, phrases, metaphors, images, and expressions that I want to use in my lectures, my writings, and yes even in conversation. "Dumb as a barrel of hair" was one I picked up from a novel and laughed out loud when I read it, and have made good use of it. Once in an oral presentation I referred to the sudden death of an ancient king as "dropped like a sack of hammers" and accidentally kept the phrase in the manuscript when I sent it to a refereed academic journal for publication. They retained it as well, so now in a very dull, scholarly journal, in a very technical (but I think fascinating) article, there you have "dropped like a sack of hammers."

So perhaps our language analogies should compare jazz solos not with casual conversation, but with professional users of language.

[lawson-stone]

To respond to what you write I have to ask a question: "Do you think that a great Jazz Musician like Oscar Peterson, Dexter Gordon, Dizzy Gillespie, Bill Evans, George Benson, Wynton Marsalis, Kenny Barron, Barney Kessel, George Benson, Benny Golson, Milt Jackson... (the list is almost infinite...), after having played for TENS of THOUSANDS of hours in concerts on all continents, during one of their solos can think: "Wow! This thing I played now I really didn't expect it!......."

Do you think it's possible??

Maybe a beginner "creates" something new but a GREAT JAZZ MUSICIAN doesn't.
If you believe it's possible then you can believe that the magician did NOT expect to find the rabbit in the hat....

Ettore

I actually think that yes, at times this does happen. The mathematical possibilities of notes and phrases on the guitar, permitted over the changes of a given jazz standard with substitutions and alternate harmonies, blended in with the amazing capacity of the human mind and the spontaneity of a group of musicians who may or may not have played together before, I think a lot of dangerous and scary stuff can happen as those people play.

[pamosmusic]

I would mildly disagree because the analogy of language isn't between casual conversation and a jazz solo. You say people don't go looking for words, but in fact writers do exactly that. Writers are constantly striving to discover fresh expressions, new analogies, compelling metaphors, the works. I am only modestly published, but I am a very frequent lecturer, thus a professional language-user, and I'm always on the hunt for fresher, better, more forcible, more penetrating ways to express myself. And yes, I comb through other writings looking for stuff, I keep a journal of words, phrases, metaphors, images, and expressions that I want to use in my lectures, my writings, and yes even in conversation. "Dumb as a barrel of hair" was one I picked up from a novel and laughed out loud when I read it, and have made good use of it. Once in an oral presentation I referred to the sudden death of an ancient king as "dropped like a sack of hammers" and accidentally kept the phrase in the manuscript when I sent it to a refereed academic journal for publication. They retained it as well, so now in a very dull, scholarly journal, in a very technical (but I think fascinating) article, there you have "dropped like a sack of hammers."

For what it's worth, I mentioned in that same post that I've been a writer for a part of my life too. I absolutely have a notebook where I wrote down words I liked (Shakespeare, Faulkner, and Woolf account for about 95%). Totally get that -- my point was more like ... how many of those words did I end up using with any regularity? Not all that many. And the ones that I did use were ones that helped me to be more specific on technical points -- if I want to describe what someone is doing with their morning, it can be super useful to know the names of the parts of the window they're staring out of, or whatever it is. The really esoteric and cool vocabulary words are generally a little less useful.

There are some writers who pull off the wild vocabularies -- Virginia Woolf and William Faulkner are the doozies for me -- but it works because it's part of a larger effect. I remember coming to Faulkner after having spent a lot of time as a musician and using the phrase "sheets of sound" to describe the experience of reading Absalom Absalom to my father (an English teacher, by the way). Sometimes that language just feels disconnected, the same way a really interesting and lovely line we've learned can stick out from the larger narrative of a solo when we haven't actually figured out how to use it. A lot of the time when I read really clever turns of phrase or really dramatic uses of interesting or uncommon words, my first thought is "oooohhhh look who decided to be a writer."

I've always been a big fan of Kazuo Ishiguro, and he generally doesn't really need much in the way of forceful expression or interesting turns of phrase to be powerful. That's its own thing I guess -- more like sensory deprivation. But still.

So perhaps our language analogies should compare jazz solos not with casual conversation, but with professional users of language.

And the point of the comparison I made there was that the most compelling aspect of improvisation to me is not that an improvisor may or may not know what they're about to say or may or may not have said it before, but that they don't know what everyone else is going to say in response. We're all kind of professional users of language in that respect, right? I'm a teacher at this point -- so I stand and talk in front of kids, but the rubber only meets the road when a fourth grader does something I didn't expect. That's when it becomes apparent whether I'm thinking on my feet or reciting from my memory.

[ruger9]

improvise

1) to make, compose, form perform with little or no preparation

= here's the head, let's go.

2) to make or provide from available materials

= here's my "vocabulary" I have learned, now go.

3) to make, compose, or perform something extemporaneously

= see #1

Extemporaneous / impromptu

1) carried out or performed with little or no preparation (plus other definitions, but they all basically repeat the definitions of "improvise".


None of the definitions mean "create from whole cloth", which is what some people think improvising is. McGyver didn't build a bomb out of thin air; he used bubblegum, a match, and a paperclip. He improvised. LOL

[Christian Miller]

This is not a simple conversation to have. There are indeed true improvisors.

If we are going to accept the dictionary definition of improvisation at face value, we shouldn't talk about 'jazz improvisation' but rather 'jazz playing' or 'jazz soloing', because it doesn't map to what to what most jazz players actually do day in day out. To be super literal, it takes, more than a little preparation to be able to improvise on Giant Steps for example.

In practice of course, language isn't tied to dictionary definitions and word use is normative - which can lead to issues of people talking past each other.

There are some true improvisors within jazz, Sonny being the most celebrated example. But on the other side some of the greatest jazz musicians didn't improvise tabula rasa, but instead worked their way towards the distillation of a solo or performance of a tune. Sonny was unusual at the time for deciding to go this route and live with the ups and downs, and found an audience that was willing to go with him. I'll post that Steve Swallow/Carla Bley interview again, Steve addresses this at around 4 minutes:

Of other artists who basically played the same solos every night - Mahavishnu was well known for this, as was apparently Joe Henderson. I don't imagine for a minute that these players (as well as Miles and Louis) couldn't make up something on the spot, but they chose or fell into working this way, probably because they felt it produced a cohesive and effective show. Anyone who has toured with a working band for a few nights might start feeling the same tendency towards the crystallisation of performances, and depending on the project it can become unwelcome to do something unexpected. (This is analogous to devised theatre in the dramatic arts - I was in a youth theatre group as a kid and we did a lot of shows like this.)

There are schools of jazz education that emphasise true improvisation at all times- Tristano springs to mind, and his thinking probably influenced Bill Evans when he described jazz as the art of 'making up a minutes music in a minutes time'. I think this approach has become highly influential in jazz education, at least in my neck of the woods.

Other schools have a more modular approach - such as Barry Harris. Barry was one of those teachers who advised students to compose out the opening chorus of their solos for example - someone who very much valued composition on a spectrum with improvisation.

So while the Tristano student improvises in eighth notes with the metronome at 60bpm focussing on each note choice, the Barry Harris student assembles modules of jazz language at 200bpm. Both schools are purportedly coming from the wellspring that is Bird, Prez etc, but somehow reached apparently diametrically opposed methodologies (of course there's probably a deeper synthesis somewhere.)

Ethan Iverson wrote an internationally provocative article a while back suggesting improvisation and swing were in tension with each other. He describes improvisation in jazz as based on repertoire, and I agree - MOSTLY. It's of course of this very reason that everyday professional 'improvisation' can have a tendency to come off as glib and superficial. We ll have our licks, and actually getting to the glib, superficial and fluent stage is an important developmental goal for the learning musician. It takes a lot to get there, and it also takes a lot to get beyond that. And some people obviously seem to cultivate a very personal repertoire of material, most obviously Monk - who was definitely a repertoire guy.

However, there are also players who know this common repertoire of jazz language extremely well and are avoiding itl Miles Davis talked famously about the importance of saying no during improvisation, and this also reminds me of Wayne Shorter, who knew it all but played with great vulnerability and without cliche or most of career, but most strikingly in his later years. I have it on good authority he knew his history as well as anyone and could play it on his horn. On guitar I'm struck by how Peter Bernstein doesn't play the Grant Green licks he did early in his career, or really much that could be termed 'straightahead jazz language' despite playing mostly straightahead jazz.

So I think over the past few decades there's been a bigger emphasis on the improvisation side of jazz and perhaps less on what you might call the showbiz side, perhaps to the point that people think jazz = true, real, spontaneous (what ever you call it) improvisation.

It seems to me in the past decade that the pendulum may have been swinging back in the other direction.

Pure improvisation is a beautiful thing, but I wonder if ultimately it can distract from the importance of making music? In an ideal world this shouldn't be a tension.

In any case, I think 'if it sounds good, it is good.' The process may be interesting, but at the end of the day, perhaps it is mostly of interest to the musicians themselves.

[Tal_175]

Maybe someone can post a transcription of what they mean by true improvisation in the jazz context. Sonny Rollins is often celebrated as the more compositional (less idiomatic) improviser. But everything is on a scale. That doesn't mean he was always playing things he (or others came before him) never played before.
For example his solo on Oleo (Bag's Groove) sounds like played by someone who has absorbed a lot of bebop vocabulary (his solo starts at 1:46):

[Tal_175]

The compositional nature of a solo can be in its construction rather than the prose, so to speak.

[lawson-stone]

For what it's worth, I mentioned in that same post that I've been a writer for a part of my life too. I absolutely have a notebook where I wrote down words I liked (Shakespeare, Faulkner, and Woolf account for about 95%). Totally get that -- my point was more like ... how many of those words did I end up using with any regularity? Not all that many. And the ones that I did use were ones that helped me to be more specific on technical points -- if I want to describe what someone is doing with their morning, it can be super useful to know the names of the parts of the window they're staring out of, or whatever it is. The really esoteric and cool vocabulary words are generally a little less useful.

There are some writers who pull off the wild vocabularies -- Virginia Woolf and William Faulkner are the doozies for me -- but it works because it's part of a larger effect. I remember coming to Faulkner after having spent a lot of time as a musician and using the phrase "sheets of sound" to describe the experience of reading Absalom Absalom to my father (an English teacher, by the way). Sometimes that language just feels disconnected, the same way a really interesting and lovely line we've learned can stick out from the larger narrative of a solo when we haven't actually figured out how to use it. A lot of the time when I read really clever turns of phrase or really dramatic uses of interesting or uncommon words, my first thought is "oooohhhh look who decided to be a writer."

I've always been a big fan of Kazuo Ishiguro, and he generally doesn't really need much in the way of forceful expression or interesting turns of phrase to be powerful. That's its own thing I guess -- more like sensory deprivation. But still.



And the point of the comparison I made there was that the most compelling aspect of improvisation to me is not that an improvisor may or may not know what they're about to say or may or may not have said it before, but that they don't know what everyone else is going to say in response. We're all kind of professional users of language in that respect, right? I'm a teacher at this point -- so I stand and talk in front of kids, but the rubber only meets the road when a fourth grader does something I didn't expect. That's when it becomes apparent whether I'm thinking on my feet or reciting from my memory.

I really didn't have in mind technical or "wild" vocabularies. Every day as I read the listen around I pick up words, phrases, idioms that are not wild or crazy, just really good for making a particular point. the two examples I gave were not technical but pretty good examples of forceful expression. I remember in a faculty meeting we were discussing some lame proposal and I dropped the "dumber than a barrel of hair" line and the discussion sort of fizzled out. People saw it.

I'm always looking for ways to freshen and strengthen my ability to communicate with words, and I think musicians likewise develop a very keen awareness of musical ideas regardless of context.

[ruger9]

In practice of course, language isn't tied to dictionary definitions and word use is normative - which can lead to issues of people talking past each other.
.

Well, words DO mean certain things, thank goodness because that's how we communicate.

Anyone straying from the actual definition of a word, is beginning to start talking about something else, other than the actual word used. So if the definitions of "improvise" above don't cover what you (I don't mean YOU, Christian, I mean the reader of this) mean, I suggest you look for other, more descriptive words and/or phrases to get the job done.

Improvise means exactly what it means. What someone MEANS when they use the word improvise is another matter, best addressed by them using more descriptors... I think what some people view as "improvisation" is absolutely free play, which would mean no head of any kind, no key (because that's "vocabulary"), and playing no notes in succession you've ever played before. This is of course ridiculous and impossible.

Everyone can improvise. How "good" they do it is in the ear of the beholder, I guess. But these arguments of "so-and-so really improvises, but such-and-such doesn't really" are silly. Improvisation means what it means.... so what do YOU mean when you use it?

Only on a jazz forum would this conversation become this ridiculous LOL. Death by minutiae.

[James W]

Of other artists who basically played the same solos every night - Mahavishnu was well known for this,

I think not.

[pamosmusic]

I really didn't have in mind technical or "wild" vocabularies. Every day as I read the listen around I pick up words, phrases, idioms that are not wild or crazy, just really good for making a particular point. the two examples I gave were not technical but pretty good examples of forceful expression. I remember in a faculty meeting we were discussing some lame proposal and I dropped the "dumber than a barrel of hair" line and the discussion sort of fizzled out. People saw it.

I'm always looking for ways to freshen and strengthen my ability to communicate with words, and I think musicians likewise develop a very keen awareness of musical ideas regardless of context.

Sure but you’re saying basically the same thing I am.

You’re attentive to what other people say, you make an effort to remember it, you’re open minded about its usefulness, and you apply it in hopefully effective ways. It’s generally quiet every day work and not some dichotomy between Original and Fresh, and Canned and Boring.

Preoccupation with innovation or originality can impair one’s ability to communicate.

[lawson-stone]

Well, words DO mean certain things, thank goodness because that's how we communicate.

Anyone straying from the actual definition of a word, is beginning to start talking about something else, other than the actual word used. So if the definitions of "improvise" above don't cover what you (I don't mean YOU, Christian, I mean the reader of this) mean, I suggest you look for other, more descriptive words and/or phrases to get the job done.

Improvise means exactly what it means. What someone MEANS when they use the word improvise is another matter, best addressed by them using more descriptors... I think what some people view as "improvisation" is absolutely free play, which would mean no head of any kind, no key (because that's "vocabulary"), and playing no notes in succession you've ever played before. This is of course ridiculous and impossible.

Everyone can improvise. How "good" they do it is in the ear of the beholder, I guess. But these arguments of "so-and-so really improvises, but such-and-such doesn't really" are silly. Improvisation means what it means.... so what do YOU mean when you use it?

Only on a jazz forum would this conversation become this ridiculous LOL. Death by minutiae.

Unfortunately your idea of what the dictionary is falls short of the reality. Dictionaries are more like polling results reflecting how words are being used at a particular moment in a language's history. If people start using a word differently, the next edition of the dictionary will reflect that. It won't say people are using the word wrong, it will simply add an entry to reflect that evolution in usage. Words do not have fixed, unchanged meanings, but are social conventions. They are, of course, very durable social conventions but words still change. IN 1611 the Bible could say "Therefore a man shall... cleave to his wife" but today "cleave" means "split" but in 1611 it mean "cling." Likewise St. Paul tells some in his audience, per the 1611 Bible, "I planned to come to you... but was let hitherto." "Let" in 1611 means obstructed, prevented, but today means "allowed." Then the 1611 Bible has Paul in another place saying someone had "prevented" him, but the term doesn't mean obstructed, but rather someone went before him to prepare the way.

So words do not really have immutable meanings, but tend to have a relatively stable sense surrounded by a cloud of other senses.

In short, if leading thinkers about jazz decide "improvise" means something different, and if the usage catches on, then that's what the word will mean. The big dictionaries will add an entry "In Jazz: to...."

[Christian Miller]

I think not.

Fair enough - that was based on an anecdotal report (I haven’t listened to the links btw, taking your word for it.)

Tbh I do wonder how well the listener can say ‘it was all the same stuff as the last night’ without reference to a recording, but that’s a separate issue…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

Well, words DO mean certain things, thank goodness because that's how we communicate.

Anyone straying from the actual definition of a word, is beginning to start talking about something else, other than the actual word used. So if the definitions of "improvise" above don't cover what you (I don't mean YOU, Christian, I mean the reader of this) mean, I suggest you look for other, more descriptive words and/or phrases to get the job done.

Improvise means exactly what it means. What someone MEANS when they use the word improvise is another matter, best addressed by them using more descriptors... I think what some people view as "improvisation" is absolutely free play, which would mean no head of any kind, no key (because that's "vocabulary"), and playing no notes in succession you've ever played before. This is of course ridiculous and impossible.

Everyone can improvise. How "good" they do it is in the ear of the beholder, I guess. But these arguments of "so-and-so really improvises, but such-and-such doesn't really" are silly. Improvisation means what it means.... so what do YOU mean when you use it?

Only on a jazz forum would this conversation become this ridiculous LOL. Death by minutiae.

A jazz forum does rather come up against the nature and practice of ‘improvisation’ does it not? Doesn’t seem as surprising or absurd to me as a lack of curiosity about it. I see it as the exact opposite of minutae.

How do our favourite musicians make music and what can we learn from them? I don’t know about you, but I’m quite interested in that stuff.

I mean for me I’d rather not use the I word anyway. I think it’s confusing anyway for exactly this reason and I do wish jazz guitar students would stop worrying about it. But whatever word I use I’m not the language police - people use it how they use, and it becomes necessary to infer meaning from context.

This is of course true of a great many words in life.

Policing people’s use of words does not in my extensive experience, lead to social invitations. Don’t know why.

The number of improvisers by the dictionary definition is really quite small. Getting purist about this as a player is a specialism even within jazz and may serve more as ideal than actuality.

Right I’m off to get grumpy about people saying ‘begs the question’ when they mean ‘raises the question.’ Grrrrrr

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ruger9]

So words do not really have immutable meanings, but tend to have a relatively stable sense surrounded by a cloud of other senses.
"

Sorry, we'll disagree on that point, words DO have definite meanings, otherwise we either 1) wouldn't need a dictionary because it would be pointless, and/or 2) it would be 100X the size it is now (explaining every possible "meaning" an individual user could have).

People may mean different things when they say "improvise", but it means A THING. How correct they are is up to them and their usage of it.

At this point, I couldn't care less. People frequently speak inaccurately, that's the world now. I ignore it most of the time. But the subject of improvisation, in our musical field, has always greatly interested me. But the word does have a meaning; all we are discussing here is what WE mean when we use it... which makes it subjective, which means much to the chagrin of some here... there is no right/wrong answer. Unless you follow the dictionary definition, all bets are off and it can mean most anything. It could mean changing 2 notes in a pre-learned static solo, or it could mean playing a completely unique solo with notes and phrases you have never played before in your life LOL. That's a wide swath. I prefer dictionary definitions. Makes communicating easier.

So dictionary definition: it is what it says.

JGF definition: whatever you want it to be LOL

Personally, I like Mick-7's definition:

Being able to instantly play what you hear

That has always been my ultimate goal, as a musician creating music.

[pamosmusic]

Sorry, we'll disagree on that point, words DO have definite meanings, otherwise we either 1) wouldn't need a dictionary because it would be pointless, and/or 2) it would be 100X the size it is now (explaining every possible "meaning" an individual user could have).

Lol … and there’s only one dictionary and it’s never changed and they never put out new editions.

[Tal_175]

It's alternately fun and disappointing and fun again to transcribe one of your favorites and find out how simple and "uninteresting" the vocabulary is on the page. The alchemy is somewhere else.

Yeah, it's the Indian, not the arrow.

[Cunamara]

Repetition can make excellent improvisation.

You can say that again!

[pauln]

There will of course be a spectrum of confounding tricky* definitions; at one extreme perhaps only satisfied by the person playing literally their first instrument for the first time.

My personal sense of "real improvisation" is very simple - confidence in unvalidated vocabulary

- while performing, I have a continuous flow of ideas, but often a new idea pops up (something that if I were practicing I would stop and examine it, test it, play with and experiment with it, to hear if it works... validate it to determine if it will be a new vocabulary for me)

- but while performing, I often feel an overwhelming confidence without prior confirmation that the new idea will work (I'm overwhelmingly compelled to perform the untested new idea - as an instance of untested vocabulary)

*see No true Scotsman