Improvisation: Applied Theory?

[Kojo27]

Maybe improvisation is applied theory - but I hope not. This bugs me to no end, when somebody (particularly an author) rattles off something like this: "‘...[Real jazz players] think in terms of changing scales and modes [while playing over changes], and applying arpeggios over specific passages." <~actual passage from actual music book.

Oh god, say it ain't so. I know that jazz players think "of" such things. But for some reason that I'm not even real clear about, the notion that jazz is "applied theory" just gravels my ass to shreds. It's an Art! -- the quote in the first paragraph makes it sound like too much left brain is in the mix, like such a player is less artistic than he is "crafty"... and as though, in too large a part, he's up there working puzzles to make the music happen.

I suspect that this is an often-deliberated question. I'm fairly cut off from the jazz world, and don't get to shoot this kind of shit over beer. And I haven't gone to music school. So I don't know! Doesn't it seem that, ideally, a jazz improviser should be head-deep in *sounds* -- and little else? I mean, yes - let him have the palettes of tone colors that are phrygian modes and whole-tone scales, etc. -- but I don't want to think he's scattering a mix of notes about only because they're the ones that make up the "proper scale" that his theory books told him would "work" for this harmonic occasion -- and I don't want to think that his creativity might well have been taking a nap when he decided, a half second ago, to scatter out the notes he scattered.

How do we know when we (or a band mate or club performers...) have sufficiently left behind the paint-by-number playing and are doing the real deal? And what is the real deal? Put another way, how can one learn, or practice, improvising every sound, rather than just mechanically playing modes and arps and such? And, especially with guitar, can we ever really break away from playing not purely sounds (as a jazz singer might), but a cloudy mix of sounds, on the one hand, and finger patterns on the other? Ted Greene said, "This [patterns] is the key to the instrument."

How do we know how much of what we're doing is art, and how much is mechanical -- just craft, and technique?

This is hard to express. I hope it makes sense.

kj

[bako]

Theory offers a suggestion of possible combinations of notes that orbit around particular harmonies.I strive to hear the impact of all 12 notes at all times. Learning these intervals in the context of modes or chord super imposition is a smaller bite than the full chromatic scale at once. I feel that practicing a concept is just taking a sound out for a walk, laying it on a table. If it's something you like, it will probably find it's way into your music organically. It need not be forced. Theory is just a set of experiments to try but we determine it's truth on an individual level. One can arrive at the same notes through theory, transcribing vocabulary or through spontaneously hearing them. Intense listening and awareness of jazz lineage provides an important common link between musicians coming together. A description is never as full of experience as the sound itself but it can offer additional insight.

[whatswisdom]

"‘...[Real jazz players] think in terms of changing scales and modes [while playing over changes], and applying arpeggios over specific passages."

May I ask which "real jazz player" wrote that?

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

What do you think about what you make love? Theory?

[mr. beaumont]

Thinking is for the woodshed.

Think too much on the bandstand and you're a dead man.

[monk]

In order to create art, you must be in control of your craft.

George Van Eps said in Harmonic Mechanisms that "Luck won't do it and ignorance can't". Most of the players we think of as great artists were/are intense, life-long practicers.

Terry Teachout, in his biography of Louis Armstrong, and Richard Sudhalter, in his book Lost Chords, both discuss the use of routining which was the practice of having "fall back" solos for times when inspiration was not forthcoming. Lee Konitz, in Conversations on the Improvisor's Art mentions how much Charlie Parker and John Coltrane used precomposed patterns and repeated themselves both live and on recordings.

Keep in mind that in the earlier days of jazz, what musicians did in the course of playing a song was called soloing, not improvising. Most of the great jazz musicians had routines that they used and did so without shame.

I will submit my opinion that becomed obsessed with creating art can leach the fun and joy out of playing music.

Regards,
monk

[whatswisdom]

In order to create art, you must be in control of your craft.

Just finished watching the US Open on Monday. Djokovic's US Open winning shot, for me, was played in the semi-final when he hit a winning return on Federer's match point. Art is everywhere. I'd say the guy practised returns a million times to get to that level and didn't do any thinking when he hit that ball. (Just thought an example from sports would be interesting.)

[Arpeggio]

May I ask which "real jazz player" wrote that?

Me too! I'd like to know which book.

[Kojo27]

George Van Eps said in Harmonic Mechanisms that "Luck won't do it and ignorance can't".

Ha! That's one to frame on the wall.

Terry Teachout, in his biography of Louis Armstrong, and Richard Sudhalter, in his book Lost Chords, both discuss the use of routining which was the practice of having "fall back" solos for times when inspiration was not forthcoming.

You're going to make me get lazy if you don't watch out. Heh. (Just joking.) John Scofield said somewhere that jazzers should make part of their daily practice, the process of walking into the room, picking up the guitar, and "just sparkling." I love this! Seems he was saying, Practice finding inspiration. Or practice learning how to trigger it in yourself. No way to explain how, but it's something I've worked at. Not foolproof, of course!

I dig jazz violinists - esp. Grappelli - and when he played with Django in the 40s, he did this cool figure in Sweet Georgia Brown, almost every time. When he made the Grammy-winning live album with David Grisman Quintet in 1980 or 82, there was that SAME damn figure. Forty years later! A long, beautiful phrasing that he just threw his heart into and if I didn't know, I'd swear he was improvising it.

Keep in mind that in the earlier days of jazz, what musicians did in the course of playing a song was called soloing, not improvising. Most of the great jazz musicians had routines that they used and did so without shame.

Good points, Monk. Thanks much : )

[Kojo27]

Thinking is for the woodshed.

Think too much on the bandstand and you're a dead man.

Jeff, you have this way of hurling pithy little stab-like responses that are 110% apt. Sure you're not kin to Aesop?

[Kojo27]

One can arrive at the same notes through theory, transcribing vocabulary or through spontaneously hearing them. Intense listening and awareness of jazz lineage provides an important common link between musicians coming together.

Thanks bako! Thanks to all of you - these are all great responses, and I was afraid my question might seem silly.

I must start transcribing more - is it really faster on computer? I'm pretty quick with a pencil. I hate learning software programs -- too tedious, and I could be practicing.

And listening a LOT more... I'm fairly new to jazz, but not to guitar. Just lately have I *really* discovered Sonny Rollins. Whoa, man. Now he CAN'T be thinking about modes and arpeggios too much. I doubt he's thinking at all - not in the normal sense of the word.

[brwnhornet59]

What do you think about what you make love? Theory?

How did you know? Dude I think about theory in my sleep, taking a dump, spanking the monkey or sparking with the wife. I think I am screwed.

[Kojo27]

May I ask which "real jazz player" wrote that?

Okay, I had to dig back through a bunch of stuff I'd been reading to find this, and I found in the process that I might have been a bit unfair - but just a bit, if at all, because the man who said this, one Gerald Rudolph, PhD, who, for a reason I can't see, wrote the foreword to the book "Exotic Scales" - a GOOD book by J. P. Befumo, probably isn't a "real" jazz player - but I didn't say he was. Indeed, Doctor Gerald, now that I read more closely, seems ill-suited to writing anything about jazz. He goes on about his "extensive formal education" and about being a "formally-trained musician" -- but it's easy to infer from his "foreword" that he doesn't play a lot of jazz. He claims to understand it, finally... but hmm.

He says:

"As a formally trained musician, I was at first skeptical of the approach propounded in Exotic Scales. After all, ‘real’ jazz players rarely approach improvisation from the perspective of applying a single scale over an entire progression. Rather, they think in terms of changing scales and modes, and applying arpeggios over specific passages."

kj

[Kojo27]

How did you know? Dude I think about theory in my sleep, taking a dump, spanking the monkey or sparking with the wife. I think I am screwed.

Hahahahahahaha!

[whatswisdom]

Think too much on the bandstand and you're a dead man.

I want to report this to the mod. Complaint: Cyber-bullying!!!

[bako]

When you know something well, the content can emerge in a single gesture.
When you are learning, it requires more attention. It is hard for the brain to keep up with the music.
If I hear the color of b9 and #9 over a 7th chord, I am generally just hearing the sound.
It is a sound I became exposed to from both the literature and as part of several different modes.

When playing I like to focus on general mood, what others are playing, the evolution of dynamics, rhythm, poetry, etc.
I try and trust that the rest will emerge from there. Being human the mind also goes everywhere, some of it helpful and some not.
Although I am not actively thinking harmonic theory, I have awareness just below the surface.

Gerald Rudolph isn't saying anything inherently untrue except perhaps his use of the word "think".
An improvisation can consist of multiple scales and arpeggios as well as passing and superimposed chords and or ornamentation, when you analyze the notes.
Academics compile evidence, form opinions and draw conclusions. What is in the brain of a particular musician when playing is hard to know.
I wouldn't judge him too harshly from this one statement or speculate on how well he can play jazz.
You are looking to books for guidance and in the process of disagreeing, your own sensibilities are emerging.

[Kojo27]

I wouldn't judge [Gerald Rudolph] too harshly from this one statement or speculate on how well he can play jazz.

You are looking to books for guidance and in the process of disagreeing, your own sensibilities are emerging.

You're a good thinker, bako -- and I like how you think. I *was* being too harsh about Dr. Rudolph. I don't know him at all, and he might be a brilliant jazz player. Whether he plays jazz well doesn't even bear on what I was intending to discuss - so I showed my arse. Thank you. Your check is in the mail. ; )

[mr. beaumont]

Jeff, you have this way of hurling pithy little stab-like responses that are 110% apt. Sure you're not kin to Aesop?

If anything, Brothers Grimm is more likely in my bloodline

[cosmic gumbo]

Once you get into bebop vocabulary, you gotta know the math and have it in your ears before you can say much harmonically, but you can learn the math by ear.

[JonnyPac]

Interesting thread- good answers.

Time on the instrument/internalizing musical performance, time spent thinking/"problem solving", time spent carefully listening and absorbing... lots of time spent in order to let go a little.

[CigaretteVodka]

How did you know? Dude I think about theory in my sleep, taking a dump, spanking the monkey or sparking with the wife. I think I am screwed.

Theory pervert!!

[JonnyPac]

hahhaha so funny.