-
When all else fails, invent a statistic.
Originally Posted by jzucker
-
04-02-2014 01:39 AM
-
What of those who don't (yet) have the mechanical facility to consistently pull off imitating a recording by a professional jazz musician? Where should they start? Is there a consensus as to a hierarchy of solos to imitate in terms of physical dexterity required? I find it quite uninspiring when it takes weeks to get a solo down and even then I have only a one in five chance of getting through it without fluffs here and there.
-
Don't start with a solo...start with a melody.
-
That makes perfect sense to me, and it actually took me a long time to understand and accept that. Still, "just transcribe" is not enough information for a beginner : once you got the solo down and can play it reasonably well, you need to do some specific work with it. I'm still experimenting with that particular part : the transcribing itself is not a problem for me, but I'm always trying to find more efficient ways "absorb" the most of the transcribed solo. Originally Posted by jzucker
Can you give me some advice on that particular issue ?
-
coming from someone who has not done their homework, classic... Originally Posted by Jonzo
dan wilson, george benson, wes montgomery, joe pass, pat martino all learned to play by imitation. None of them knew any theory and little to no formal training prior to copying the masters.
Do your homework. I studied with Joe and Pat and am good friends with Henry Johnson who knows George Benson personally. George has told henry all about Wes' formative years as they were very good friends.
I'm sorry but I'm not going to be able to prove what you want me to prove with a degree of hard science.Last edited by jzucker; 04-02-2014 at 09:29 AM.
-
For several years up until my Tascam Guitar Trainor 'expired', it was my primary tool for transcription. But many transcriptions were partial, getting down certain melodic details in up tempo solos, for example. But with rare exceptions my intentions were never to slavishly imitate and memorize a solo note-for-note but rather to hear better and understand the "melodic device" in question. Once the Tascam CD trainor expired, I have not done much of that style transcription, in part because my skills have deepened and in part because I cannot convince my wife that Transcribe is an essential piece of software to spend money on.
Before I transcribed, I just played along to CDs and before that to albums or even the radio. Now I create my own transcriptions of jazz standards with notation software, which is the best solution yet, imo. Using notation software allows you to create your own backing tracks. This provides you with tireless virtual musicians with whom to play as well as helping you to dissect the music and assimilate. Remember that until you can play solo like Joe Pass, you need something to play off of or against.
I also agree with Jeff that before improvising off the melody, it's a good idea to just be able to play the melody by ear. And for that you just usually need to be able to sing, hopefully in tune. There is no hierarchy of jazz tunes in terms of difficulty worth compiling beyond using your ears. Which sounds harder Blue Bossa or Giant Steps? (The latter a tune I always have detested.) Give me the bossa every time. And the other major skill you need to get down is to learn to swing. Ultimately, one's sense of time and swing are the most important solo skills that you need to learn by doing.
I always feel that every time I play is an improvisation, as I don't generally sight read my transcriptions for the notes as much as for the lyrics. There are exceptions if I'm working on an intro, for example. Last night I was listening to the most beautiful solo guitar version of Here's That Rainy Day I've ever heard by a guitarist I doubt you have ever heard of - Bob Burford. His version is quite similar to mine, as we are both classically trained. He used to play with George Barnes over at Concord recording studios, however. And he is masterfully good.
-
to answer a few other questions, the idea that you shouldn't start with a solo and that you should start with the melody is fine but a solo is just a melody. Common sense would dictate that if you are going to learn a solo over a tune such as night and day, that you learn the melody and chords. If you can't play the melody and chords that would be the prerequisite to learning the solo.
When you learn the solo, it's important to mentally be able to divide the solo into a grid. A spreadsheet as you will, with the columns being the chords that the solo fits over. As you gain experience in your transcription, knowing the chord for the particular "cell" will allow you to more quickly figure out what notes are being played over it. Additionally, when you know the chord, you will have some predetermined positions that perhaps the notes might have originally been played in. Eventually this will become second nature but at first it's a stumbling block.
If you have some knowledge of theory, it's helpful to analyze the lines in terms of the chords that the lines are played over but this is not absolutely necessary as you can see if you study dan wilson, george benson, wes montgomery, joe pass, pat martino and the many other jazz guitarists who learned to play by imitation and knew no theory when they began.
I would advice learning the solos in blocks, say one 8 bar phrase at a time. You do not necessarily have to play it in tempo but at least be able to play phrases at a slow tempo, attempting to emulate the phrasing, picking, slurs, etc. This may be impossible for a beginner but if you keep at it will become 2nd nature.
And finally once you know a phrase, apply the "grid/cell" discipline and isolate lines/licks out of the phrase that appeal to you. Take those lines and learn to play them using every finger of every string. This begins the process of building up your individual catalog of melodic material to later use as you improvise. Eventually, your ear will guide you in how to put the pieces of the this catalog together.
-
Jackendoff's point was that the similarity between making music on a clarinet (-which he does) is no more like language than making a cup (-or rather, brewing a pot) of coffee. It might be easier to see this another way: every normal human being can speak a language but not every one of them can sing. That is, not all people, indeed, most people, are not very musical WITH LANGUAGE, let alone a musical instrument that produces sounds that are not words. (Show of hands: how many musicians here make better music with a guitar than they can with their own voice, which they've been 'playing' longer and use more every single day?) Originally Posted by Jonzo
(For the record, I don't agree with all that Jackendoff says about music or the mind. I chose him because he is an expert an linguistics as well as a musician who has performed with symphony orchestras; he knows more about linguistics and about music than most linguists or musicians do.)
Why you would "conclude that Ray does not play music that conveys a thought or feeling." Anyone who has been in a choir, or just performed in public when having a bad day, knows it is possible to convey emotions one is not feeling. Also, it is possible to play music without having any specific feeling at all. (Many people have written and recorded music and only much later realized 'what that song is about' or noticed that it was very sad or ambiguous in a way they hadn't noticed at the time.)Last edited by MarkRhodes; 04-02-2014 at 09:42 AM.
-
Jzucker - I agree with you that notes grouped in a phrase on a sheet music melody staff are 'solos', though I don't think of playing the melody to a standard as improvising. But in any case some guitarists cannot play the melody of Stardust by ear, for example. If you cannot simply play the melody as if you were singing it, you cannot really play off the melody.
I believe you noted that you have taught at the University of Miami and elsewhere. I'm curious if you agree that learning to use notation software is de rigueur for serious music students. Certainly they have the opportunity to find others with whom to play, but I would think that would be the standard these days.
-
Good point. In thinking about this, my favorite soloists were all great at playing melodies. Some might think 'the melody is easy,' and in comparison with, say, a fast Charlie Parker solo, it is much easier to play, but I think most great improvisers know a boatload of tunes and when they play those melodies, they sing, and in learning to make melodies sing, one learns so much about phrasing, feel, articulation, and also about what one likes best in jazz. Originally Posted by jzucker
-
As I said, if you think you have enough evidence to make a decision, that's fine. We all need to go ahead and practice, based on our best assessment of what works. But you don't know what the word "proof" means. You have evidence, not proof. Originally Posted by jzucker
Maybe you could bully your freshman students by telling them to "Do their homework", but it isn't going to distract anyone from the fact that you pulled your 99.9% number out of your ass.Last edited by Jonzo; 04-02-2014 at 10:24 AM.
-
One can argue that music is or is not a language. There are similarities and differences to support either point of view. If you think that, despite the many similarities between learning a foreign language and learning jazz, foreign language pedagogy holds nothing of value for you, that is fine by me. Some people think that the only relevant information is what Wes did. That is fine by me too. Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
-
Double post deleted.
Last edited by Jonzo; 04-02-2014 at 10:19 AM.
-
I hate to jump in to disagreements like this - well actually I think it's kind of fun. The proposition that you wanted proof for was this - "Not saying that other methods are invalid but copying solos is the tried and true and proven methodology".
I don't know what you expected to receive as "proof" if it wasn't a list of guys who learned that way. Were you looking for a scientific study? If so then scientists normally don't speak in terms of "proof" of one proposition or another in the way that you are suggesting. They will present a theory and then set about conducting experiments that have the potential to falsify the hypothesis. The experiments are conducted to show whether a given theory or model will predict things we know to be true from empirical data. For example, Einstein postulated a "cosmological constant" as part of his theory of relativity. When empirical evidence later showed that the universe was expanding, he believed this notion was incorrect. It was later shown not to be entirely incorrect but I digress.
Scientists never really talk about a theory being "proven". They will say that there is a large body of evidence by way of experimentation that is consistent with a given theory being true, but they always leave open the possibility that a subsequent experiment or subsequently obtained empirical data will show the theory to be false.
As for "proving" that "copying solos is the tried and true and proven methodology" I would imagine that would require the person being asked to prove that theory to find out how the best players learned how to improvise and if it invariably turned out that the best improvisers learned to do that by copying solos, then he could say that his theory is supported by the experiment that he conducted and the empirical data that he gathered.
If you would like to propose another experiment intended to test the hypothesis further, then you could do that and, if you were able to show that the empirical data did not support the hypothesis, then you could assert that hypothesis to be false. Otherwise, one might suspect that your request for "proof" was insincere and perhaps akin to a rhetorical "says you".
As for the 99.9% figure being discussed, I presume that to be rhetorical rather than the product of an actual survey. That said, I'm not sure how else those players named might have learned how to improvise given that there was no internet 50 years ago, not much in the way of method books or jazz colleges or any other teaching method that is common these days. On that basis I would be surprised to learn of anyone from that era who learned to improvise otherwise than by imitation. In that event, the 99.9% might be an underestimate.
Cheers.
-
This just seems a silly argument. The great players who, themselves, say they learned this way have been listed. This isn't an economist's study. Originally Posted by Jonzo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been thinking a lot about this whole thing the last day or so and think I've figured out what bothers me about the whole thing: It's the assertion that it's inefficient, and possibly even a waste of precious practice time to learn other's solos. Because, after all, you learn to improvise by improvising, not by just playing other people's solos.
But that idea implies that the only thing of value to be learned by playing someone else's solos is its value in teaching you to improvise your own. And that's simply not true. You're learning to play jazz.
You're learning, aurally and kinesthetically, (even if you don't know all the concepts and terms yet) all of the jazzy articulations such as triplet hammer-on/pulloffs, vibrato, different tone qualities representative of the style produced in by right and left hand techniques, the slides, the accents, polyrhythms, and superimposed melodic rhythms. You're also learning the sounds and the kinesthetics for the concepts that you'll later learn in theory such as enclosures, chord substitutions, chromatics as well as the larger forms within the structure of the phrase, then outward to the chorus and finally, to the entire structure of the multichorus improvisation.
Since we're talking about efficiency and not wasting time, can I assert that learning one excellent solo which will incorporate hundreds of these elements in a short space of time is probably the most efficient way to put all of these things into your ears and fingers. The "why's" and concepts will all make more sense later, in the context of what you have already played and heard in the solo. After all we did say transcribe and analyze.
Jazz is a style of music beyond just the fact that it is improvisational. You can say that it ain't jazz if it's not improvised, and we all know what is meant by that statement. But jazz isn't improvisation alone.
I'm sure we could put up two solos, one of more interesting melodic content in terms of pure pitch, and one less so, but still say that the second one sounds more jazzy because it's more in the jazz idiom. It swings more. It's articulated with jazz tone and phrasing, even if it is simpler.
In the same way, it would be very pretentious and arrogant for me to walk into a blues joint and say I'm ready to hang if I'd never bent a string or done anything with working on a real blues vibrato and tone. "But I do know all of the applicable scales and understand the underlying harmonic structure and form very well. I can definitely play these changes. After all, I do play jazz."
Rubbish.
If you learn to improvise by improvising, we're assuming that you can already articulate your music in the style. But how do you learn to play in the first play? Is it really more efficient to practice all of the articulation, tone, and concept elements at the same time that you're improvising your first solo and hope that it will just spontaneously happen and be jazzy?
I'll give it to you guys: You learn to improvise by improvising; early and often.
But you learn to play by playing. You can't improvise what you can't play. For someone who doesn't know the style yet how else do you learn that except by listening and imitating.Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 04-02-2014 at 10:53 AM.
-
i think I already conceded that I don't have proof and you will never have proof in an artistic discipline regarding the way to learn. If that's your prerequisite for practicing you suffer from analysis by paralysis . Originally Posted by Jonzo
Can you improvise jazz at a high level? Because if you can't, you simply are not qualified to pass judgement on this subject. That's the sad fact of message forums. The vast majority of advice is given by people without qualifications.
-
My last words on this subject and then I am unsubscribing from this thread.
The sad fact is that most of the advice given out on the various jazz guitar forums is by people who can't actually play jazz, have never played a jazz gig, can't solo over complex chord forms or rhythms or time signatures and have little to no experience. They are forum heros and are more interested in protecting their little chat-space online personas than anything else. One guy on that forum (obviously a scientist) began asking for empirical, irrefutable proof and attempting to discredit my working knowledge and experience because I could offer nothing in the way of hard scientific proof to my assertion that copying solos was the most valuable way to learn the music. Frankly, I'm only interested in hearing from people who have successfully navigated the terrain of jazz and have become good jazz players, regarding the best way to learn to improvise. If you are not a good jazz player than you shouldn't be doling out advice on the subject. I know that's harsh and I understand that there may be many paths to the same destination but if you are lost in the woods, you shouldn't be giving directions.
-
OP here..... What I decided to do to learn improv is to do it the old fashioned way. I'll be going back to Robert Conti's Ticket to Improv Volume 1. Edit: and to a lesser extent, I'll try the book "Improvising for Real" by David Reed.
Last edited by angelpa; 04-02-2014 at 11:52 AM.
-
Originally Posted by jzucker
Well, I know you're unsubscribed now, but this is spot on.
The reason I say do a melody first if you can't hear what's going on in a solo is a lot of players don't learn melodies and chords by ear...they got iRealBook and Band in a Box and a bunch of things that are great, but can be crutches too (And look at me, I'm one of the guys who defends real books...)
It's nice to have a little guidance when starting out with transcribing solos...I didn't have it...I ended up picking things that sounded "easy," but I soon found out they weren't. Melodies are at least (usually) a little more spacious, a little more straightforward...but hell, a solo is a melody...or in the case of Parker tunes, a melody is a damn good solo.
-
It is kind of funny how sometimes in the course of a discussion egos do not permit unorthodox opinions to be expressed or the orthodoxy questioned. I agree that most players do learn the craft of jazz by imitation. Struggling to play that George Benson solo, learning that Joe Pass version, etc. But how many of us actually play rote versions of songs as played by Coltrane, Parker, Pass, or Bill Evans? And if you do, are you a mimic or merely a very skillful imitator?
Most of the time, when I play a ballad or other standard, I improvise because I am too lazy to learn a rote version, and besides, if I am improvising beyond restating the melody, it is my voice. This discussion also begs the question if simply stating the melody is actually improv or something else.
But we should be charitable one to the other and realize that an opinion is just that. Like a certain anatomical feature in mother nature's scheme, everyone has one. And it is only music after all.
-
You have a tendency to fall back on bluster, attacking the person rather than the argument. Do I REALLY need to list all of the great teachers and coaches who did not perform at a high level, or all of the high level performers who are crappy teachers? I think most of us have seen both. Originally Posted by jzucker
I have taught reading, writing, math, science, sex ed., and history. I only perform one of these at a high level.
My emotionally disturbed high school students came to my class at an average grade level of 3, and left at an average grade level of 6. In other words, in one year, they learned twice as much from me as they had learned from all of their other teachers in the previous 10 years. This is all based on standardized testing data.
I don't care how good you can play. Your students are already talented and highly motivated. They may learn from you, or despite you. At a university, you can point to the hoop, and your students will figure out how to jump through it, regardless of your teaching skill. If you have a private student who is unmotivated, you can just drop him.
Given the most difficult students, I delivered the goods, regardless of the subject.
So your teaching qualifications are in question; not mine.
Your argument is that transcription worked for Wes, Joe, etc., and that is good enough for you. I would just leave it at that.
It seems to have gotten lost that I am not necessarily against transcription. I do know that you can transcribe a solo, and not be able to improvise, and be able to improvise without ever transcribing a solo. I have seen both. The OP posed a forced choice. If I had to do one thing to learn to improvise, I would practice with backing tracks, rather than transcribing solos. But using only one method in the real world would be absurd. As I said previously, you need to have some type of input, and then you have to create output. I do think that Mr. Beaumont is right (and I think that you have conceded) that transcribing solos, rather than melodies, is too much for a beginner.
Now, a more interesting question is whether transcription based learning is one reason most people find jazz stale. I went to the International Society of Bassists Conference last year, and got to hear Ron Carter, and a whole lot of people who sounded a lot like Ron Carter. It got stale pretty fast. I did not hear much "transcending" going on among the jazz players (except this one Israeli guy). I listened to college players from Julliard, Oberlin, and other great music schools, in the jazz competition, and they all sounded like imitators.
Maybe this has more to do with the role of the bass in jazz. There does seem to be more variety among guitarists.Last edited by Jonzo; 04-02-2014 at 12:38 PM.
-
Without proof? Originally Posted by Jonzo
Have you heard the man play? On what do base your conclusion? It appears that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
-
@Jonzo: As the OP, I really did not ask what "one method" to use .
I asked "what (was) ...the
one single resource (book or DVD) that has gotten you to soloing quickest?"
I think it may be a subtle but important difference.
-
Cute. Originally Posted by monk
If you accept the author's contention that music is not a language, the conclusion is axiomatic.
Language
any system of formalized symbols, signs, sounds, gestures, or the like used or conceived as a means of communicating thought, emotion, etc.
-
I agree totally with your comments about the instructors from G.I.T. I asked the same questions as you in 1978. Howard Roberts, Joe Pass, Ron Eschete, Les Wise, Joe Diorio, ALL OF THEM said that quickest way from the practice room to the bandstand was to copy solos off records Originally Posted by monk
wiz
Reply With Quote
Neural DSP plugin 50% sale... Tone King Imperial...
Yesterday, 11:03 PM in For Sale