Do you have worked out solos for jazz standards?

**S_R_S5** · 06-20-2011, 01:54 AM

A lot of great jazz players work out their solos note for note. I was just wondering if you have a solo you play everytime you play a standard. Lets say someone calls up autumn leaves. Have you worked out a solo?

TH · 06-20-2011, 02:21 AM

Worked out solo=composition. Solo=spontaneous composition. It's really useful to write out solos; it gives you a great chance to gather your wits in the comfort of your own mind. Soloing in real time follows a tradition of improvisation-it employs things you find, compose, practice but it's a search for the music of the moment. In answer to your question, when I solo, yes, written out solos get played in real time, all the time. But the notes and pauses are just in different order.

**S_R_S5** · 06-20-2011, 02:34 AM

Well then answer this question. Is "composition" better than "soloing"? If not explain why people like George Benson, Pat Matheny, Brent Mason, Pat Martino, and Lee Ritenour play the same solo every time. I'v seen and heard plenty of live recording where the solos are note for note every time. Not just jazz either. Brad paisley in the country scene also does it. Steve vai who is a rocker works out everything note for note. Jonny Lang in blues plays the same solos live as he does on the CD. I am not saying that these people can not make up solos spontaneously, rather I am suggesting that maybe working it out makes it more creative and better.

TH · 06-20-2011, 04:53 AM

Originally Posted by S_R_S5

Well then answer this question. Is "composition" better than "soloing"? If not explain why people like George Benson, Pat Matheny, Brent Mason, Pat Martino, and Lee Ritenour play the same solo every time. I'v seen and heard plenty of live recording where the solos are note for note every time. Not just jazz either. Brad paisley in the country scene also does it. Steve vai who is a rocker works out everything note for note. Jonny Lang in blues plays the same solos live as he does on the CD. I am not saying that these people can not make up solos spontaneously, rather I am suggesting that maybe working it out makes it more creative and better.

Composition is not any better, just as Segovia playing Granados is not better than Jim Hall playing "The way you look tonight". But if it truly is note for note, in the solo section, it is not improvisation if nothing has been changed. Then it's a reading of a piece, and I'd go as far as to say that if their intention was to play a note for note, then it'd not qualify as a solo.
I can't speak for any of the names you mention, not knowing them or not having attended any of the events you have, but I will say when I've seen Pat Metheny playing in a jazz setting, it's always sounded like him, with very characteristic phrasing, but the content, phrases and shape of the solos have always been unique. If someone that is a true improvisor plays the exact same solo note for note as you have observed, it is an intentional thing, and not an improvised solo. Using up 4-6 minutes of your life playing a rote solo is not the creative experience that defines jazz though. Play a ballad with original nuance, phrasing and rhythmic intention, that's real.
David

**Marto** · 06-20-2011, 05:19 AM

My favorite aspect of jazz is the interplay between musicians and that is built around improvising. Not just the soloist but the rhythm section too, bouncing ideas around and trying to spur each other on. I think you would loose that with totally composed pieces.
But I do agree with you in that you could create more complex and possible more refined solos by composing them and it is common in other styles of music such as the type of stuff Steve Via plays.

**drobniuch** · 06-20-2011, 06:11 AM

George Benson, Pat Matheny, Brent Mason, Pat Martino,

I cant belive that this jazz guitarists play it note for note.. could you give an example in YT... There are the same licks but the whole solo!! please replay

**princeplanet** · 06-20-2011, 07:42 AM

Seems jazz musicians prize the ability to compose solos spontaneously whereas non jazz musicians probably don't as much. Is it true the Modern Jazz Quartet preferred to play worked out solos over "improvised" ones? Maybe their audiences didn't mind, (or notice?)....

But to answer the question, yeah, I have worked out solos for certain things, but as "training wheels". As I get better, or braver, I try to swap out bits for new ideas that sort of pop into my head. Even just re-ordering chunks can make a solo sound different to the last one. This, it seems to me, is what the greats have done, albeit, to a much higher degree than most of us will ever attain...

**mr. beaumont** · 06-20-2011, 08:00 AM

I'm telling ya, those guys you mentioned do NOT play the same solo every time.

You might hear a guy working a similar idea on recordings from several consecutive nights, or on alternate takes on the same album, but those cats you mentioned who "work out their solos ahead of time" are among the best improvisers in the biz.

I can't speak to Paisley--that's country music--different ballgame (but my ears tell me he's a good improviser too...but his solos very well might be worked out)

Why would working it out make it more creative and better? Improvisation is the soul of jazz. This sounds like a big ol troll post to me.

**hed_b94** · 06-20-2011, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by Marto

My favorite aspect of jazz is the interplay between musicians and that is built around improvising. Not just the soloist but the rhythm section too, bouncing ideas around and trying to spur each other on. I think you would loose that with totally composed pieces.
But I do agree with you in that you could create more complex and possible more refined solos by composing them and it is common in other styles of music such as the type of stuff Steve Via plays.

You would lose that? quite the opposite.

Now Im talking about a full composition, not just the soloist,
but if you compose a complete 'piece', which is notated for every instrument you can have much more interplay, or other various musical effects (just listen to some classical symphonies..) nevertheless I never tried to compose a solo and then play it, but I think I'll give it a try.

**mr. beaumont** · 06-20-2011, 08:22 AM

How do you get more interplay if the group has a set piece of music they're playing? Interplay is all about reacting to one another--improvising.

Jazz uses a structure most of the time--chord changes. there's a roadmap the group follows...

Have some of you guys ever listened to jazz?

**guitarplayer007** · 06-20-2011, 08:48 AM

They play something similar , but its never note for note. Listen to pat Metheny play Phase Dance, its never the same!!!!
Please

**hed_b94** · 06-20-2011, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

How do you get more interplay if the group has a set piece of music they're playing? Interplay is all about reacting to one another--improvising.

Jazz uses a structure most of the time--chord changes. there's a roadmap the group follows...

Have some of you guys ever listened to jazz?

??
Why do you assume interplay has to be between the people and not between the music? or the lines? that's real interplay. and ofc when you write it all before you can 'perfect' those interplays.

you asked in a sarcastic-agressive way if I (or 'you guys', but I dont really see anyone else you refer to since im the only one to post afteryou) about listening to jazz. Did you ever listen to a composed music with interplay within the melodies? did you ever listen to symphonies of Mozart or Beethoven?
seems to me like you dont understand what interplay is

**mr. beaumont** · 06-20-2011, 09:17 AM

I certainly have listened. Doesn't come close to the interplay in a good jazz group.

Interplay is about spontaneous reaction. I'm sure the classical cats have their definition too, but this is a jazz board, and this is a post in the improvisation section of it. In jazz, interplay is about improvisation.

When a jazz group is really going, the soloist is not the only person improvising. The whole group is collectively, listening, feeding off each other, pushing the soloist and the soloist pushes back. There's nothing else like that, at such a high level of complexity, in music. It's why I play jazz, because that's as rewarding as it gets.

"You guys" was really directed to the OP, but to you as well, as you seem to forget the biggest thing that makes jazz "jazz.". The OP's posts are really borderline trolling. You can't come to a JAZZ board and say "Hey, here's some of the "best" at your craft. They don't improvise" and expect it to go over quietly. You do it to get a rise.

As for our disagreement, I just think we have very different definitions of what interplay is. But semantics aside--the heart of what makes jazz unique would be robbed if improvisation was removed completely. That's a fact.

**princeplanet** · 06-20-2011, 09:34 AM

I'm still waiting for the OP to show these contentious examples of replicated solos. Surely he is aware that even if such examples do exist, there are countless more examples from the same players where they play different, sometimes very different solos, even in consecutive takes in the studio. This is why we all love to hear studio out takes of the greats. And is why I love The Jazz Messengers more than the MJQ.....

**hed_b94** · 06-20-2011, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

I certainly have listened. Doesn't come close to the interplay in a good jazz group.

You definitely didn't listen good enough.

**mr. beaumont** · 06-20-2011, 09:39 AM

And you didn't read good enough. Please see my definition of interplay as it pertains to jazz, being this the improvisation section of the jazz guitar forum.

Got no time for trolling, gents. Move along.

**hed_b94** · 06-20-2011, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

And you didn't read good enough. Please see my definition of interplay as it pertains to jazz, being this the improvisation section of the jazz guitar forum.

Got no time for trolling, gents. Move along.

I read it good enough.

You say you have different definition, yet you are fine comparing them and saying jazz is better. (Wait, improvised music is better than non-improvised music in terms of improvisation? this is too much for me..)

Also your definition is just bad. I don't accept it. I asked you why interplay needs to be between the people and not between the music and melodies, you just ignored it.

Now you are defining me as troll. Nice.

So you basiclly define anything just the way you wants it, and then ignore anything else while shouting "Thats my definition!!"

I'm not going to comment again, you may feel free to close the deal

**princeplanet** · 06-20-2011, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by hed_b94

You definitely didn't listen good enough.

Classical players, be they soloists or part of a chamber or larger group, will of course perform a piece with subtle differences each time. But due to what? Maybe human randomness? They are striving for the perfect performance and failing everytime in a slightly different way. Maybe the conductor will feel different from one night to the next, but seriously, to compare this kind of subtle organicism to a great jazz band in full flight who are "going for it" and taking wild chances is frankly an insult to what these Jazz players do best - ie, improvise, lines, groove, feel, everything!

The range of expression for classical players is necessarily far more limited in variance when comparing one performance to the next. Not only do most jazz players try to avoid exact replication, but most will admit they are INCAPABLE of it! Anyway, I'm sure Mr B wasn't insinuating one form of interplay is "better" than the other, but that is is simply prone to more variation in more ways. Really, you just can't argue with that.

**mr. beaumont** · 06-20-2011, 09:56 AM

It's a jazz board. Jazz interplay is between musicians. It's not better, but it is the very soul of what makes jazz unique. It's everything. Without it, there is no jazz. It's not an arguement, that's what it is.

**hed_b94** · 06-20-2011, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by princeplanet

Classical players, be they solists or part of a chamber or larger group, will of course perform a piece with subtle differences each time. But due to what? Maybe human randomness? They are striving for the perfect performance and failing everytime in a slightly different way. Maybe the conductor will feel different from one night to the next, but seriously, to compare this kind of subtle organicism to a great jazz band in full flight who are "going for it" and taking wild chances is frankly an insult to what these Jazz players do best - ie, improvise, lines, groove, feel, everything!

The range of expression for classical players is necessarily far more limited in variance when comparing one performance to the next. Not only do most jazz players try to avoid exact replication, but most will admit they are INCAPABLE of it!

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????/

mr. beaumont please tell me if you thought of what I said as ANYTHING like what prince is talking about.

**princeplanet** · 06-20-2011, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by hed_b94

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????/

mr. beaumont please tell me if you thought of what I said as ANYTHING like what prince is talking about.

If you are confused, why don't you ask me for qualification instead? Re you trying to insult me now? Nice!

I get the classical thing, I did it for years, played in groups, studied at Uni for 5 years etc. It's a different planet, not better or more or less challenging, just different. I also recorded many consecutive performances where I was certain they sounded very different to others, citing that we collectively felt differently and therefore, due to "interplay", the performance was performed better on occasions. However, listening back to the recordings did not bear this out. That, for me, taught me a lot about the subjectivism we all suffer from when trying to "judge" performance values.

**Bill C** · 06-20-2011, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by hed_b94

if you compose a complete 'piece', which is notated for every instrument you can have much more interplay

... isn't that "counterpoint" rather than "interplay"?

**cosmic gumbo** · 06-20-2011, 10:26 AM

**princeplanet** · 06-20-2011, 10:30 AM

If that 's what he means then he didn't explain it very well. Anyway, then it becomes a silly debate and not at all what the title of this thread is about.

TH · 06-20-2011, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Bill C

... isn't that "counterpoint" rather than "interplay"?

Or it might be a Beethoven String Quartet...

Speaking of which, anyone listen to Bill Frisell's 858 string quartet? Some really great arrangements that sound like improvisations and great improvisations that sound like arrangements.