"Playing What You Hear" (according to Don Mock.)

[Kojo27]

In one of Don Mock's fine guitar books, _Symmetrical Scales, Revealed_, he says this, in his introductory comments:

"One last thing: A common misconception about improvising is the phrase "playing what you hear." Many players say they do this, leading students to think that they simply make up music on the spot. What they are really saying is that they are playing what they know."

Well, hmmph. Nobody would pay to hear me do it, but dammit, I can create melodies in my head ("on the spot") and my fingers will transfer my musical creation to my guitar almost simultaneously.... so would Mr. Mock say that I'm among those musicians who "say" they do this... but are just damned liars? Watching and listening to George Benson improvise, I honestly suspect that he's creating some of that, right there, for the first time ever. Ditto for Larry Carlton and some others I've heard. And what about when Ella Fitzgerald would go off into La-La Land, singing -- was she not really singing anything she conceived in her musical mind? Was she just belting out regurgitations of stuff she knew already?

I know there's an ongoing debate about creativity and originality, etc. -- but people DO compose new melodies! How the process works isn't the point here.

Any comments about this?

[Billnc]

I can scat what I play on guitar. I honestly don't know which is coming first, the line on the guitar which I then sing, or the singing which would be translated to guitar.

My best improvisation I don't really know what is going on.

Having said all that most of the time I'm doing a combination of things. I'm not a master. I've seen the best struggle, and then half an hour later be flying in what appears to be pure improv.

[jmstritt]

I think that what he is trying to say is that, people don't just randomly improvise without any regard to chord changes or theory or anything. The way that we are able to improvise is due to the fact that we have all of this accumulated knowledge under our fingers and can recall those arrps, sclaes, licks, etc at will.

Eventually this hopefully gets to the point where we don't think about every chord change, etc, but it still requires the upfront effort.

Just my two cents FWIW.

[Kojo27]

I can scat what I play on guitar. I honestly don't know which is coming first, the line on the guitar which I then sing, or the singing which would be translated to guitar.

Good point - it *is* tricky to know. I wonder every time I see Benson or Oberg, anybody doing it, and a killer line comes out, which followed, which led -- fingers or brain.

A player might try strumming a nice chord, then clearing his mind.... Then with all his heart and soul (and clear mind), scat the hell out of about two bars, to fit that chord. Then see if he can play it on guitar with the same intensity. Seems that should be illuminating.

Scat-playing might be a "swap out," with the voice sometimes following, sometimes leading. It's tough to imagine creating an entire (good) jazz solo, every time, with my fingers always mere servants of my brain. Some can probably do it -- I don't know.

Very interesting

[Gramps]

One definition of improvisation is the re-organization of things you already know.

I think the original quote was pertaining to the idea that players just make up lines out of the blue. The lines they are making up are based on stuff they already know.

I could be wrong though.

[fep]

Good point - it *is* tricky to know. I wonder every time I see Benson or Oberg, anybody doing it, and a killer line comes out, which followed, which led -- fingers or brain.

A player might try strumming a nice chord, then clearing his mind.... Then with all his heart and soul (and clear mind), scat the hell out of about two bars, to fit that chord. Then see if he can play it on guitar with the same intensity. Seems that should be illuminating.

Scat-playing might be a "swap out," with the voice sometimes following, sometimes leading. It's tough to imagine creating an entire (good) jazz solo, every time, with my fingers always mere servants of my brain. Some can probably do it -- I don't know.

Very interesting

Tricky to know?

It's easy to test...

When you 'play what you hear', you have to hear it accurately first. If you can hear it accurately in your head then it should be easy to sing.

Play a low G note and from that note,

Sing a mixolydian scale,

Sing an altered scale,

Sing a diminished scale,

Sing a whole tone scale.

Imo, if you can't easily do that, do you really think you can play what you hear? Or, are you playing what you're fingers know?

Another test would be transcriptions. Play a CD (i.e. hear a CD) and then play it. If you can't immediately play it and/or transcribe it quickly and with pretty much no errors... then do you really think you can play what you hear?

I too can scat along with my playing... but I'm scatting what I'm playing not playing what I'm scatting.

Kojo, I'm not saying you can't as I've never heard you play.

But I know that the guitarists I know can't 'play everything they hear'. I know a bass player with perfect pitch that can though, for that matter he doesn't even need an instrument, he'll just tell you the notes.

I completely agree with Don Mock, at least for the majority of players. Someone like George Benson? I think he can play anything he hears, but he's awfully exceptional.

[kaishakov]

I think most players can play what they hear but within the context of scales and arpeggios they know verry wel. I am not a good jazz player but in rock and blues solo's i can play what i hear because i know those scales verry well. In jazz it's the same idea but there are just more possibiities and scales to know, so it's much harder .

[monk]

I agree with Don. Most improvisers are spontaneously reorganizing the lines and phrases that they've internalized.

The best analogy I can think of is when someone makes an
extemporaneous speech. They aren't making up new words as they speak, they're arranging the words in their vocabulary to construct sentences.

I have the Wes Montgomery Complete Riverside box set, the 20 volume Djangologie set, the Johnny Smith Complete Small Group recordings, the Charley Christian complete Columbia recordings as well as the CC Minton's recordings and CC radio transcriptions. All of these guys are musical geniuses and yet they repeat themselves. That creates a strong argument for Don's statement.

As an adjunct to Fep's excellent test, I would suggest recording yourself singing an improvised line over a short progression such as I vi ii V. After you record it, store it without listening to it. Do this once a week for a month. At month's end, listen to all the recordings carefully to determine if all of your melodies are completely different.

[Astronomer]

Tricky to know?

It's easy to test...

When you 'play what you hear', you have to hear it accurately first. If you can hear it accurately in your head then it should be easy to sing.

Play a low G note and from that note,

Sing a mixolydian scale,

Sing an altered scale,

Sing a diminished scale,

Sing a whole tone scale.

Imo, if you can't easily do that, do you really think you can play what you hear? Or, are you playing what you're fingers know?

Another test would be transcriptions. Play a CD (i.e. hear a CD) and then play it. If you can't immediately play it and/or transcribe it quickly and with pretty much no errors... then do you really think you can play what you hear?

That's interesting...I've got to try that test. Unfortunately, my voice isn't that good haha.

[Kojo27]

All I'm saying is that I think he rushes to warn players not to expect to imagine a new melody and play it at practically the same time -- none of this "playing the stuff you can just imagine, or make up" (or "hear") -- when, IMO, this way of improvising ("pure improv," as Billnc calls it, I think) should be applauded and encouraged. If, by “hear,” Mock means “create in the aural imagination,” then he openly pooh-poohs this whole beautiful process as not even being a reality.

If, as some of you seem to feel, he is saying that few, if any, players can merely pick up the guitar and play wonderful music all over the fingerboard, with no theoretical knowledge, no knowledge of scale fingerings, arpeggios, etc. – then I agree! But I don’t think this is what he’s saying.

Buy this book - the content is fabulous. Here's a link to the page I've quoted. Decide for yourself:

Mock_Intro.jpg - File Shared from Box.net - Free Online File Storage

[fep]

All I'm saying is that I think he rushes to warn players not to expect to imagine a new melody and play it at practically the same time -- none of this "playing the stuff you can just imagine, or make up" (or "hear") -- when, IMO, this way of improvising ("pure improv," as Billnc calls it, I think) should be applauded and encouraged. If, by “hear,” Mock means “create in the aural imagination,” then he openly pooh-poohs this whole beautiful process as not even being a reality.

If, as some of you seem to feel, he is saying that few, if any, players can merely pick up the guitar and play wonderful music all over the fingerboard, with no theoretical knowledge, no knowledge of scale fingerings, arpeggios, etc. – then I agree! But I don’t think this is what he’s saying.

Buy this book - the content is fabulous. Here's a link to the page I've quoted. Decide for yourself:

Mock_Intro.jpg - File Shared from Box.net - Free Online File Storage

I do think it can be done, but it is a very high level skill.

Take a really good blues player, like Stevie Ray Vaughn (if he were still alive). He's very fluid and can play chorus after chorus of new ideas. I wonder what would happen if someone played him 2 bars of be bop over changes. If he can truly play what he hears then it would be easy for him to instantly and accurately play those lines. Pretty sure that wouldn't be the case, it's not in his vocabulary, it would seem like a foreign language.

I've met a couple of people that compose mostly without an instrument. Straight from their head to manuscript paper. And if I play a little idea that they like they'll write it down, again without an instrument reference. It's very impressive.

But, that is in relatively slow motion compared to improvising. And, I can do it myself, as long as it's not complicated. That is after all similar to dictation in ear training courses.

To me, playing what your hear in real time (not what you already know), at the speed of improvisation, is more impressive. If you can truly do that then notating your composing without the aid of an instrument should be relatively easy for you.

Certainly you've heard Don Mock play. He's a monster and very creative. It seems he's saying that he 'plays what he knows 'not 'what he hears'.

[Kojo27]

Tricky to know?

OOOPS... my bad, fep. I'd written a bunch of stuff there about *other* players - Benson, Oberg, Ellis -- and wrote, about THEM, that it is tricky (difficult) to know when their brains are leading their fingers -- and when the reverse is true.

Hastily chopped and cut and pasted and dragged, dropped, screwed up, it became what I posted - a mistake.

It's easy to test...

YES: it *is* easy to test! If you'll read my very next paragraph, you'll find a simple test right there in the original post.

When you 'play what you hear', you have to hear it accurately first. If you can hear it accurately in your head then it should be easy to sing.

Agreed - 100%

Play a low G note and from that note,

Sing a mixolydian scale,

Sing an altered scale,

Sing a diminished scale,

Sing a whole tone scale.

Imo, if you can't easily do that, do you really think you can play what you hear?

Absolutely! Maybe in my culture we have only the pentatonic scale. Whatever melody I might create in my mind ("hear") could not possibly come from these collections of notes I've never heard. Just listening to the music is NOT the same as being able to "hear" the music. But this doesn't mean I don't imagine my pentatonic melody very vividly - does it? And it doesn’t mean I can’t play a melody as I bring it forth in my imagination.

=======================
Now, fep – here's one of what I think are only TWO points of fundamental disagreement (or misunderstanding) we have: As I said above, and using your own logic, if a person can really HEAR a collection of notes, he should be able to sing the notes. If he can't sing them, he isn't "hearing" them. He might "listen" to them all day but still be unable to hear them.

Yet you imply in other parts of your post that if a person can play what he hears, he should be able to play whatever he listens to! A contradiction?

Stevie Ray and the bebop? Clapton (based on interviews and other stuff) hears his solos before, or AS, he plays them -- he plays what he's hearing, as you say Stevie did. He might "hear" the same lick one night after another, but he still hears it first. So he's playing what he hears.

But, as with your good example, throw Clapton into a jam on Donna Lee, and he'd die. Hopeless. Because he can't sing a mixolydian mode or a whole-tone scale? Maybe. Really because he can't hear bebop; he isn't a bebop player and probably doesn't want to be. But JEEZ - the guy can play what he *can* hear. I think he's a great improviser. So is Larry Carlton, btw!

I admit it: I can't hear those half-tone whole-tone inside-out nine-note ragas that McLaughlin plays so easily with. I'm relatively new to jazz -- but I can play the stuff I can hear and make up in my head. I can make up melodies only from the note collections I can *hear* -- and sing.

Even if the melody I create in my aural imagination is as simple as "Amazing Grace," and if I can simultaneously finger and play this tune I'm "hearing," I've played what I heard. This is *all* I meant.

The other fundamental difference: you're talking about "everything" being heard before it can be played, but I didn't say this was the thing here. If a player conjures up half of his solo before executing it, or as he executes it, I'd say he can play what he hears. He might not *want* to invent it all in aural imagination -- so what? It should be an option, I think. Some parts are always the same.

I'm simply surprised and let down that Mock (whether intentional or not) disabuses student guitarists of the notion that this is possible at all. It is absolutely possible, and guitarists should practice doing it!!!

Moreover, I believe it's much more feasible than is traditionally believed and taught, to become, with practice, a jazz guitarist who plays virtually all he hears, if he wishes to, and nothing he doesn't. I can't do it, but it's a thing to reach for. This would no doubt demand a somewhat different approach to playing -- some innovation. Is this silly, or too idealistic? No! I really think not... Keep your eyes on Julian Lage...and others.

If I'm misreading Don Mock, or you fep, I apologize.

kj

[monk]

I highly recommend this book:
Lee Konitz: Conversations on the Improviser's Art by Andy Hamilton(University of Michigan Press, 2007).

[EightString]

When I improv, there are certainly existing patterns that I draw from. However, I also mix these with truly improvisational melodies that are "new" in the sense that I am composing over the chord changes on the fly using deliberate intervalic movement, one note at a time.

This deliberate melody component can happen at very high speed, or at slower, more moody speeds, depending on the needs of the song.

But it DOES keep my playing from sounding too "riffy", and that melodic approach seems inherently more accessible than chaining riffs.

So I believe you CAN play new content on the fly. I do it all the time, or I would get bored, and it would drive me crazy if the only way to play something "new" would be to learn or create another riff off-line.

[Kojo27]

When I improv, there are certainly existing patterns that I draw from. However, I also mix these with truly improvisational melodies that are "new" in the sense that I am composing over the chord changes on the fly using deliberate intervalic movement, one note at a time.

This deliberate melody component can happen at very high speed, or at slower, more moody speeds, depending on the needs of the song.

But it DOES keep my playing from sounding too "riffy", and that melodic approach seems inherently more accessible than chaining riffs.

So I believe you CAN play new content on the fly. I do it all the time, or I would get bored, and it would drive me crazy if the only way to play something "new" would be to learn or create another riff off-line.

God bless you.

kj

[princeplanet]

When I hear guys who claim to not use pre fab riffs or lines, I can tell that they're not the one's being bored...

Seems most of the true greats repeated themselves, which would mean that although they may play what they hear, they hear what they know.

Can anyone one think of any exceptions? Sonny Rollins maybe?

[brwnhornet59]

When I hear guys who claim to not use pre fab riffs or lines, I can tell that they're not the one's being bored...

Seems most of the true greats repeated themselves, which would mean that although they may play what they hear, they hear what they know.

Can anyone one think of any exceptions? Sonny Rollins maybe?

Chic, Herbie. I have heard them both do some amazing stuff. Gonzalo as well.

[EightString]

When I hear guys who claim to not use pre fab riffs or lines, I can tell that they're not the one's being bored...

Seems most of the true greats repeated themselves, which would mean that although they may play what they hear, they hear what they know.

Can anyone one think of any exceptions? Sonny Rollins maybe?

So the audiences are being bored with my playing because I don't use riffage exclusively? Really?

Nice.

[Kojo27]

When I hear guys who claim to not use pre fab riffs or lines, I can tell that they're not the one's being bored...

It's strange that all those people who pay to hear John Scofield actually *like* being bored. Actually PAY to be bored.

[princeplanet]

Maybe add him to the short list of exceptional players who can be entertaining without resorting to prefab anything. Or maybe not, I'm sure there are plenty that don't dig Sco. I for one prefer his straightish stuff that at least sounds like he's playing lines.

[princeplanet]

So the audiences are being bored with my playing because I don't use riffage exclusively? Really?

Nice.

Sure, if you're great at it, then it should be more thrilling than lick machines. Just sayin' that there are a lot pf players that play in public that sound to me like they're not there yet. I'd rather hear a slick lick machine than the guy who's struggling to make up melodies no one has ever conceived before. Now, the latter maybe more difficult, more admirable and indeed more arty, but the majority of listeners seem to prefer music with less awkward surprises. Even jazz guitarists seem to prefer Wes and Pass over Sco. Don't get me wrong, I like risk taking, but only when it comes off. Besides, it can be argued that line players can still take risks with their playing, enough to thrill (obviously unhip) listeners like me at least, anyway....

[Kojo27]

Maybe add him to the short list of exceptional players who can be entertaining without resorting to prefab anything. Or maybe not, I'm sure there are plenty that don't dig Sco. I for one prefer his straightish stuff that at least sounds like he's playing lines.

You might be right. Jack Zucker's forum "quote" (beneath his name in posts) says, "People say they know what they like, but really they like what they know."

In ANY concert - rock, jazz, opera, whatever - the tunes that get the most applause are almost always those the audience recognizes most readily.

Problem is, jazz (seems to me) is *about* improvisation. Among many other things. So, are we spontaneously putting *notes* together, or spontaneously putting *licks* (lines, phrases) together -- or what? "A mix," I can hear it now. Not that this is a bad answer - it might be THE answer! //// I couldn't bear sitting through a blues guitar concert where all that was played was cliche blues licks in E and A. But many players play just this way, or they play the same original licks over and over - or a mix.

Maybe it comes down to who you're playing for -- yourself, or your audience. I think an artist creates whatever expresses *his* unique vision of things. If a player's "vision" is no more than "jazz vocabulary" (i.e., licks) strung together ad nauseum, then I can't argue with him. But I probably wouldn't listen to him, or want my child to listen to him. It has to be more than that.

kj

[fep]

Does anyone know where that Metheny youtube video is where he says something like...

On a good night, probably only about 25% if what I play when improvising is new material... on a good night.

[Kojo27]

Don't get me wrong, I like risk taking, but only when it comes off.

But if a player is really improvising MUSIC - and not finger patterns - and if he's composing as he goes, hearing in his head what he wants to play, though he's making it up on the spot -- and if he knows the fingerboard (where the sounds are) there is no risk -- is there?

If I can sing something, I can play it without taking a risk. This is no big deal, though -- it's a very little deal, actually.

If you mean playing by the "let your fingers fly" method (a lot of pentatonic rockers, for example, do this), then yeah, that's risky and might thrill some people. I don't see why, though.

kj

[fep]

and using your own logic[/B], if a person can really HEAR a collection of notes, he should be able to sing the notes. If he can't sing them, he isn't "hearing" them. He might "listen" to them all day but still be unable to hear them.

Yet you imply in other parts of your post that if a person can play what he hears, he should be able to play whatever he listens to! A contradiction?
kj

Using my own logic?

I never said, "If he can't sing them, he isn't "hearing" them. He might "listen" to them all day but still be unable to hear them."

I said it should be "easy to sing". But, I'll admit singing is not easy for some, so that statement was sloppy. But it doesn't take away from my argument, we aren't talking about singing we're talking about hearing. I was only using the singing as an illustration, if you can sing it you certainly can hear it, though the opposite is not necessarily true (for those that have difficulties singing)

Where did I say, "He might "listen" to them all day but still be unable to hear them." ?

We are talking about very accomplished musicians aren't we? We're talking about musicians that can play anything they hear, right? It's hard for me to imagine that someone like that "might "listen" to them all day but still be unable to hear them."

You said: "Yet you imply in other parts of your post that if a person can play what he hears, he should be able to play whatever he listens to! A contradiction?"

I don't understand how that's a contradiction.