Real improvisation

[Cunamara]

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

Indeed, I think the whole thread sums that difficulty up. But anybody who believes they are improvising something totally new all the time is just fooling themselves; it's probably not even possible to do so with human neurology. Speaking as a psychologist, I think music is like every other knowledge-based endeavor. There is fluid and crystallized intelligence and most of the time we are functioning out of crystallized intelligence, mixing and matching various units of previously acquired knowledge in hopefully new ways. If we don't have some of that, we don't have a style; if we have not internalized those stylistic structures from the history of jazz, we don't sound like jazz when we're playing. This is our cognitive toolbox that we develop through learning, experience, practice, repetition and it becomes fairly inescapable. The moments of inspiration that we have, which are so exciting when they occur, are an example of fluid intelligence peeking out. But we can't live there full-time.

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.

Yeah, Pete has developed a very personal voice on the instrument and is possibly my favorite current working jazz guitar guitarist. Some of his influences including Grant Green and Jim Hall seem obvious, but I hear a lot of Gene Bertoncini in him (Pete studied with him at some point). Gene is another guy who does not play a lot of straightahead jazz language even though he's playing straightahead jazz. I was just listening to his trio recording with Melissa Stylianou and Ike Sturm this afternoon; marvelous playing by Gene who does not comp in anything remotely resembling a traditional way most of the time, yet everything sounds like jazz. It always sounds fresh. If you listen to it, you'll hear a connection with Peter's playing.

I bring this up because Gene talked to me (at a jazz camp) about his use of arrangement in his solo guitar pieces. He noted "arrangements were good enough for Duke Ellington, they're good enough for me." Those arrangements and the deep analysis he has done of the music provide a springboard for creativity. He trained as an architect prior to being a professional musician, so having a very structural and spatial sense of music is probably related.

[Christian Miller]

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.

Cut to Peter Bernstein saying ‘how about I play it first and then I hear it?’ Haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

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.

One hundred years ago “jazz” meant a variant of marching band music with a specific big four feel in the drums and tuba and a certain type of extempore syncopation in the trumpet and clarinet obligato, while solos were composed.

This is not what most people mean by jazz today.

So yeah, I think this idea of words having immutable meanings is risible. OTOH I do think the onus is on the speaker to be as clear as possible.

My theory is the idea of improvisation in jazz originally came from classically trained musicians used to scores looking at jazz musicians working without them and not having a clue how the performance was organised. Later on jazzers became attracted to improvisation as an end in itself.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kris]

"You play what you learned"-that's a long time ago John Scofield said.
I think that this statement is very open in relation to the learning of jazz.
In many interviews with John we can hear how much he owes to playing with the best jazz musicians.

[AllanAllen]

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.

This is so Ohio.

[RobSilver7]

But there are also brilliant musicians who are so creative that they create new phrases all the time.

Which musicians are you referring to that create new phrases all the time? I don’t think this is an achievable goal. Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Wes Montgomery, etc etc all sound like themselves because of typical riffs, melodic choices, etc that show up in much of their work (although of course it evolves). I studied with Mick Goodrick ( a long time ago). He once said something like: “Everyone has a can of beef stew they can open up in an emergency.” I think he meant that everyone had fallback licks or phrases they could draw on in the moment. Of course when you create new phrases it’s a wonderful feeling. But the new will be mixed in with the more tried and true stuff.

[lawson-stone]

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.

I'm sorry too. I have spent the last 40 years of my life doing linguistic and lexicographical work in about 8 ancient languages from cuneiform to Egyptian hieroglyphic. I have worked with scores of dictionaries and contributed entries, written articles on meanings of words, and been a translator.

But hey, I leave you to your inerrant dictionary and vastly superior knowledge of how language "really" works.

[pamosmusic]

and been a translator.

well that will cure you of the whole “words have fixed meanings” thing real quick.

I have three translations of Crime and Punishment ?and they all feel like different books.

[ruger9]

LOL, we aren't talking about translations, or turning hieroglyphics into English.

We're talking about English>English. So it's really more of a toe-MAY-toe/toe-MAH-toe thing. Not a tomato/carburetor thing.

Nice try, tho.

[pamosmusic]

LOL, we aren't talking about translations, or turning hieroglyphics into English.

We're talking about English>English. So it's really more of a toe-MAY-toe/toe-MAH-toe thing. Not a tomato/carburetor thing.

Nice try, tho.

Dude.

Is a tomato a vegetable or a fruit?

Ask a botanist and a nutritionist and you might get different answers because they’re evaluating it on different terms. Ask those same people thirty years ago and you might get different answers again.

Contained in your joke response are the seeds of your flawed understanding of how words work.

Get It? Seeds?

Eh not my best work. Anyway … even your post happens to be a classic example of the way words can have different meanings in different situations and how those meanings change over time etc etc

[Tal_175]

There is also a secret desire to keep the conversation going by keeping definitions ambiguous. We have theory threads that are 50 pages long where every participant has a different definition of the word "theory" in their minds and has zero desire to clarify it. In a another thread right now people are acting like the word "chord" has no known meaning in music.

The thing is these are all simple concepts, but simple concepts don't make good threads. The forum is a safe space for us to pretend these concepts don't exist. But in the real world when someone asks us to take a couple of choruses, we know what they are saying. Or when playing a gig we don't say we are opposed to chords and refuse to comp.

[pamosmusic]

There is also a secret desire to keep the conversation going by keeping definitions ambiguous. We have theory threads that are 50 pages long where every participant has a different definition of the word "theory" in their minds and has zero desire to clarify it. In a another thread right now people are acting like the word "chord" has no known meaning in music. The thing is these are all simple concepts, but simple concepts don't make good threads. The forum is a safe space for us to pretend these concepts don't exists. But in the real worlds when someone says take a couple of choruses, we know what they are saying. Or we don't say we are opposed to chords and refuse to comp.

Okay -- so when someone says "improvise," then what do they mean?

[Tal_175]

Okay -- so when someone says "improvise," then what do they mean?

See that's exactly my point. If you were at a jam session, someone calls a tune and asks you to take the first chorus and improvise after the head, you wouldn't ask "But what do you mean improvise? What does it really mean?". This only happens on the forum.

[pamosmusic]

Well ... almost certainly I would repeat musical phrases and play some stuff that I've deployed in other tunes. I doubt I would consistently be so creative that I create new phrases all the time. Actually, I wouldn't even try to hold myself to that standard because that's not a particularly interesting aspect of "improvising" to me ... but the OP would seem to disagree:

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?

This only happens on the forum.

Well yeah, duh. We only talk about stuff interminably when we're in a setting set up for talking about stuff.

[pamosmusic]

A more useful framing than "someone at a jam asks you to improvise -- what do you do?" is probably ... "someone at a jam tells you you need to work on your improvising, so you go home and sit down to practice -- what do you do?"

In that case, the way my definition of "improvise" being different than someone else's would actually probably dramatically impact what I do.

[pauln]

How should we evaluate the difference between the definitions and opinions of those who claim to do real improvisation, and those who dispute real improvisation exists?

[Tal_175]

In the real world, when someone performs an improvised solo, it is understood that they have never played that solo before. The solo construction had a subjective degree of uniqueness compared to the other solos they've played or learned from other players.

There is a range in the degree of uniqueness of a performance that fall within the notion of improvisation. This is the commonly understood meaning of improvisation which is not news to anyone here (except when we are discussing on the forum because it's fun).

[pauln]

I say real improvisation is the performance of unvalidated vocabulary.
That covers a full range of definitions and intentions of meaning, and
it is quite practical as a jazz concept for regarding one's own playing.

[pamosmusic]

How should we evaluate the difference between the definitions and opinions of those who claim to do real improvisation, and those who dispute real improvisation exists?

See Tal?

I dare you. Tell me this isn't fun.

[Tal_175]

See Tal?

I dare you. Tell me this isn't fun.

Depends on whether you are a JGO member or a real JGO member.

A real JGO member would never say it's not fun.

[Heybopper]

My take on it is this. You improvise when you have a conversation with some one. You might have a subject you want to talk about, which will give you an idea of what might be said but you dont plan out the conversation in full. The more command of the language and knowledge, the more different types of conversations you can have.
This is me improvising

Now im not saying its the best but here are some points that I think might be important. If you always play Stella in Bb between 120 and 140, then yes the chances are that you will use the same ideas but maybe in different areas. I tend to think of rhythms, so start with quavers or long notes, gradually try for triplets, then other rhythms. I decide when that will happen once the solo begins and im comfortable.
Now if you practice Stella as a ballad at 60 bpm all the way up to 240bpm the you know that certain ideas work at some tempos and not others, also you might do it latin.
I never know what tempo ill do a tune at on the gig and I usually ask the other members if they have a preference or if we did it one way last time, then do it different the next.
On the clip it was decided and off we went. I hadn't played with the bass player for 6 years, I had no idea what he was going to do and he has a day job and drove from chelmsford uk to Norwich Uk for the gig and only picked up the bass to put it in the car and get to the venue.
I guess the big question is am I playing things ive never played before? well no not exactly but everything is in an entirely improvised order as to what comes first and what comes next and then there are parts where you try out ideas that you event played before. If that works then you try it even more if it doesn't then you try something else and the safety net is being able to describe the chord or targeting the chord and do it differently every time.
Its a work in progress ive got lots to do but thats my take.
I did remember seeing sonny Rollins and Jim hall play a tune of the bridge album on a us black and white show, the whole tune was played nearly exactly the same as on the record including Jim halls solo, the tune was a ballad. I think sonny Rollins played some different stuff but I was quite surprised when I saw it

[lawson-stone]

LOL, we aren't talking about translations, or turning hieroglyphics into English.

We're talking about English>English. So it's really more of a toe-MAY-toe/toe-MAH-toe thing. Not a tomato/carburetor thing.

Nice try, tho.

I have no answer for imperial ignorance.

[wolflen]

As a collective group..I tend to feel much of this conversation is improvised. Even though I hear familiar licks
and scale runs..something new evolves and drops a hammer in a bag of hair over a Dmin11th chord.

For me I see improvisation as a overview of larger time spans of musicians playing careers.

I'll use Miles Davis..who did not like the term "Jazz" (nor do I ) Kind of Blue was a monumental change in his approach to music.
It still had some harmonic stability the ear was accustomed to..but the compositions kept the ears open to surprises and required
the listener to hear it over and over to absorb the new material in full..if that is possible.

We are told in reviews of the album that much of the work was not rehearsed and the solos were created in this atmosphere.

Hearing Coltrane and Evans solo on Blue in Green the energy to my ear is just mesmerizing..and just knowing that after
the tune was over..there was a silence in the studio..in recognition of "improvisational magic".

If they played the same solo again-note for note-it would not be the same. Perhaps it could be defined as "reverse improvisation"

[rpjazzguitar]

One goal is to have a recognizable individual style.

Another goal, apparently, is to play new material as much as possible.

So, there's supposed to be, in the same solo, enough elements to sound like you, but not too much of whatever made you sound like you in the first place.

Is the discussion still about how much really great players are relying on practiced licks?

Every great player that I've listened to a lot, live, has repeated some stuff.

And, in the case of one player I described, I asked him about a particular lick that I'd only heard him play once -- and he dismissed it as "one of my old licks". Meaning, that it sounded brand new to me, but not to him.

My guess is that people rely on practiced stuff more as the tempo gets really brisk. At slower tempos, it's easier to think about what you want to play. And, like everything else, some people have more facility than others.

[supersoul]

This all makes me think of comedy improv. Comedians aren't generating brand new jokes every time they perform. They have enough material for at least a set, they think about what to start with, if it's not working try something different, extend stuff that does work. It's all about making the audience crack up, and the comedian's attention is tuned to what is working with THIS audience at THIS moment. The jokes themselves just unfold naturally.