Best Resource to Learn Jazz Guitar Improvisation?

[Jonzo]

@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.

True. You were specifically asking for a "method".

In that case, I would agree with FEPs "silver bullet". (Drink a few Coors Lights, and improvise!)

[mr. beaumont]

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.

It really depends on the beginner to jazz and where they've been before...and the material chosen to transcribe...miles' solo on "so what" is a lot easier than the head to "Donna lee."

[angelpa]

True. You were specifically asking for a "method".

In that case, I would agree with FEPs "silver bullet". (Drink a few Coors Lights, and improvise!)

What I meant was: what was the one single method that was most helpful in getting you there the fastest?

[Jonzo]

Here is a good page on what some of the jazz greats did.
The Problem With Studying The ?Jazz Language? | Bill Plake Music

I think it brings the Transpose/Improvise debate into perspective.

[matt.guitarteacher]

It seems to have gotten lost that I am not necessarily against transcription.

Sorry, but you people saying to learn to improvise by copying other people's solos are demonstrably wrong.

I honestly don't see how your posts have been lacking in personal attacks but whatever...

For all the accusations of made up statistics and "proof", it's just air. You can get on the internet and blow about how people don't have proof of things which are not quantifiable that way, and now, you're the expert demanding that the rest of the jazz world who actually plays music prove something to you. You've personally insulted many respected long-time contributors to this forum who've contributed not only words but examples of their playing to illustrate concepts and techniques that actually work. The proof is in their playing.

By the way, as a teacher, I'm totally down with the idea that the best teachers aren't always the best players. Very often the coaches who've had to struggle more are really skilled at teaching others to excel for the very reason that it wasn't just "natural" for them. As a teacher, (not a jazz instructor, mind you) I'd definitely put myself into that category.

Where's the proof there?

It's in their students. If you're going to make that argument, you've got to coach your team more successfully than the coaches who were also excellent players. Honestly, in the realm of jazz guitar, I don't have either "proof". What would you say about the students/emulators of players like Joe Pass, Wes Montgomery or even Jack Zucker. In addition to their performance abilities, they've got quantifiable measured results through what they've produced in terms of students who can really play, their own written and recorded material, as well as other intangibles such as legitimate influence on this forum and elsewhere.

What do you do when you're trying to find the answer to something that is largely subjective anyway? I believe it's common practice to ask the experts in said field of interest. That's been thoroughly hashed out here already. The fact is that if you're going to make an insulting statement like...

Sorry, but you people saying to learn to improvise by copying other people's solos are demonstrably wrong.

You've got to actually demonstrate that statement with proof, don't you? "Classical players don't improvise and they play others music..." isn't proof anymore than the "proof" others have suggested in this thread by relating what the greats actually said about learning to play.

If the consensus among those who play jazz at a high level is against you, in addition to the consensus of professionals in jazz education who (regardless of their own playing ability) have a track record of producing excellent jazz players from their students, then isn't the burden on you to "prove" that they're all clueless, the-world-is-flat, stick-in-the-mud, traditionalists who don't really know anything?

You could argue with Stephen Hawking about his "unproven" theories. But if go there, in front of a group of scientists, saying he's demonstrably wrong, you're going to want to have "proof" otherwise. He's got real respect from a substantial body of work.

But this is the internet....

Just ripe for us bloviators...

[matt.guitarteacher]

Here is a good page on what some of the jazz greats did.
The Problem With Studying The ?Jazz Language? | Bill Plake Music

I think it brings the Transpose/Improvise debate into perspective.

The student mentioned in the article was only practicing playing other people's solos. Of course that's ridiculous. In this thread, I haven't noticed anyone who's "debating" for the use of transcription (as a part of learning to play) using the word "only". You've used it a lot though.

Whatever...

[coolvinny]

Here's a guy who plays piano and has put in something like 9,000 focused, dedicated practice hours over the better part of the past decade: Jazzwee's Jazz Piano Journey

In my view, he plays piano well...but it doesn't really sound like jazz. I think it's great the guy has dedicated himself to this wonderful hobby of music and is pursuing jazz, but I think he has a long way to go in his quest to be a "jazz player". IMHO.

I happened by his blog and I commented on his practice routine because to me it seemed he didn't really dedicate any of his practice time to learning the language through transcription, making the language "his" (through variations, etc). That was before I'd heard him play. In response, he said he wanted to sound original, to have a unique voice, etc, and he finds that trying to apply licks results in a very mechanical sound (which is true...if you stop at just dropping the lick rather than really internalizing it and making it yours). Then I heard him play and it pretty much sounded like what I expected it would sound based on having heard a few amateur pianists who play jazz tunes.

Anyway, some people might think he plays great. I think he sounds like a piano player making the changes on jazz tunes, but not like a jazz musician - not even very close, IMHO. And making the changes on the piano really is not that hard from what I've been told by others (which is why so many learn it as a 2nd instrument) - it's harder on guitar.

My point is that this piano guy is a good example of someone who practices a lot, gigs, etc but does not study the language. Adopting the same path will probably get someone to a similar place.

[mr. beaumont]

Yeah, that's interesting...his playing is very...pleasant...but yeah, seems to use no tension...there's no chromaticism, no enclosures, no approach notes...does jazz need those? Maybe that style? Could you learn how to do that without ever transcribing?

Looking back, I think the biggest thing I learned from copping licks was how to swing. I'm not sure there's anything harder to articulate in words and exercises...

[MarkRhodes]

Cute.

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.

This is farcical. One may communicate with a gun but that doesn't make it a language.

[coolvinny]

I think that is a good description Mr. B - it is pleasant playing, but it lacks tension. I also know (I swear, I am not stalking the guy...) from reading something on his blog that when he took a lesson with a heavy piano cat, the heavy cat said his playing sounded extremely diatonic, which I'd agree with...again...making the changes. Also agreed regarding swing. I learned it from jazz trumpeters I think. I think the pianist's swing is sort of awkward...it does "swing" in the music-notation sense of the word, but somehow it lacks that jazzy swing. It swings, but maybe more like how classical players swing when playing jazz/pops tunes?

Transcription is not a silver bullet or a guaranteed path to success, but I think it has to be part of the routine to get that jazz feeling. I just offer up the pianist as an example of where the various paths can lead.

[mr. beaumont]

Funny you should mention trumpeters...

I think I've told my story before here, I started listening to jazz back in high school, but it wasn't until after college really that I pursued actually trying to play it...so I'm on like 13 years or so of my jazz journey...long way to go.

Anyway, really early on in my jazz playing, I got hooked on this Dinah Washington album, "Dinah Jams!" It featured this absolutely CRACKING hard swinging band, just killer players, including a young Maynard Ferguson, perhaps at the height of his LOUD/HIGH prowess...well anyway, that whole band swung so hard, but Maynard's solos absolutely blew my mind. I liked more modern stuff at the time and this was like a calling back to Louis Armstrong or something...

I don't think I knew a damn thing about how to swing until I got into the older stuff...and I know, some of it might sound kind of corny today...but I almost feel I had to learn to swing in a "swing" context first, before I could ever play lines that really swung in a bop or later context...

anyway, just reminiscing a bit...but maybe, to drive back towards the OP a bit, yeah, it was transcription, or copping licks (as I was never too big on writing stuff down, lazy) but in particular I had to go backwards through jazz a bit...just like I said I couldn't "hear" a solo at first, I couldn't hear what was really happening in the modern music I was into--Pat Metheny, whatever...I needed to go back...Charlie Christian, Django...I was lucky, cuz when I heard this stuff I loved it...like I said I know some folks might find it a little corny...but for me, that was it, I could hear it! hen quickly it was Lester Young...Then a big Paul Desmond phase...

[monk]

Here is a good page on what some of the jazz greats did.
The Problem With Studying The ?Jazz Language? | Bill Plake Music

I think it brings the Transpose/Improvise debate into perspective.

I read it. He makes a most persuasive argument for his opinion which just happens to be similar to yours.

So when someone disagrees with you or presents information, in this case factual and historical, that you deem invalid, you demand facts but are more than comfortable and willing to accept someone's opinion, anecdotal, without the facts or proof you demand from others simply because that opinion coincides with your own.

There's your perspective!

[GuyBoden]

I had to go backwards through jazz a bit...just like I said I couldn't "hear" a solo at first, I couldn't hear what was really happening in the modern music

Same thing happened with me, I loved modern Jazz as a teenager, Weather Report especially, but it took learning the older standards Satin Doll, Perdido, Honeysuckle Rose etc to appreciate just how difficult it was to play good modern Jazz.

[cosmic gumbo]

When I first started getting into jazz, there was no internet, no local jazz clubs, I didn't know any jazz musicians, there were few jazz books at the music store...how was I gonna learn anything? I didn't give it a second thought...I just assumed I had to learn it the same way I learned blues and rock improvising, learning it from records.

When I first heard this tune, I had no doubts about what the title implied.

[ChrisDowning]

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.

Its a combination of stuff. If you ask a person the "Why" question you'll get an answer that starts "Because..." and they are deeper dug into their opinion having just restated it whilst answering you. Secondly we all try to take whatever is said and reform it into supporting what we already think. It's very hard to say, "Well, that's an interesting point and something that will make me rethink what I believe." However logical or factual the arguement, our intenal dialogue, the one that helps us 'survive', says, 'I'm OK, you're nuts!"

All the routes talked about here can get you the results you want. Perhaps the most important thing to considerris how long will it take. The trite answer is 10,000 hours. But say we take a player who is currently doing pop and blues in pubs ( knows a couple of pentatonic scales and five chord forms around the five CAGED positions and solos based on blues licks) From there to performance standard jazz improvisation still in clubs and pubs? Using whatever route I would say 500 hours of study to build a two hour rep for pubs, cafes, resturants, and another 500 to get up to jazz club level.

[Jonzo]

This is farcical. One may communicate with a gun but that doesn't make it a language.

Thanks for clearing that up. I see now that music and language have nothing in common.

What was I thinking?

[ColinO]

Thanks for clearing that up. I see now that music and language have nothing in common.

What was I thinking.

I think the point being made was that, just because music does have some things in common with language, that doesn't mean it actually is a language.

I think the whole "music is a language" idea is a metaphor - or a way of describing something abstract by likening it to something we can all relate to. I tried ordering eggs in a restaurant using jazz language and ended up with a pulled pork sandwich - I'll never do that again.

[Jonzo]

I read it. He makes a most persuasive argument for his opinion which just happens to be similar to yours.

So when someone disagrees with you or presents information, in this case factual and historical, that you deem invalid, you demand facts but are more than comfortable and willing to accept someone's opinion, anecdotal, without the facts or proof you demand from others simply because that opinion coincides with your own.

There's your perspective!

No need to shout.

Actually, I thought the article made a good case for what the transcription people were saying: use transcription to inform your improvisational practice. Also a lot of the transcription people are enamored of what "the greats" did, so the anecdotes are relevant to their perspective. I'm not sold on transcription as THE way, because I know great improvisers who do not transcribe. But I could be wrong. There are also a lot of great improvisers who do transcribe.

I didn't say the article proved anything, and I have said that everyone needs to go ahead and practice based on what they think the evidence supports. You are putting words in my mouth, and ascribing opinions to me that I do not hold.

i still believe that transcribing alone will not teach anyone to improvise. (What I described as "demonstrably false"). You have to spend time improvising. I think most people who value transcription agree, but were just stirred up because they perceived me as a "transcription denialist". I'm more of a transcription agnostic.

[Jonzo]

I think the point being made was that, just because music does have some things in common with language, that doesn't mean it actually is a language.

I think the whole "music is a language" idea is a metaphor - or a way of describing something abstract by likening it to something we can all relate to. I tried ordering eggs in a restaurant using jazz language and ended up with a pulled pork sandwich - I'll never do that again.

My point has always been that they share similarities, so what can one teach us about the other? We could also talk about what learning to play basketball can teach us about learning jazz guitar. (Something I have thought about a lot.) Though I am sure that a lot of people would want to scold me, because jazz is not literally a sport.

[MarkRhodes]

Thanks for clearing that up. I see now that music and language have nothing in common.

What was I thinking?

I didn't say they have nothing in common. We use analogies to liken disparate things all the time: war and sport, chess and coaching, politics and war. At a beginner's level, it can be useful. It's a handy analogy for teachers of young (or new, at whatever age) students. But it does not follow from this that music and language work the same way or that there is anything especially useful about learning to improvise that comes from calling it (or thinking of it as) a language.

Consider the role of the hand in music. Musicians have been called "hand athletes." This doesn't make music a sport but it does highlight the amount of practice needed to refine hand movements to make one's instrument sound the way you want it to. It also suggests one must keep at it. We don't think of language this way. This whole aspect of playing music---which is a big focus for advanced players---is not much like language at all. It's a matter of knowing what you have to do to get the guitar to sound a certain way and also of being able to make it do that. (One can know how to play a piece but attempt it without warming up and botch it; we don't normally think we need to warm up to talk, though singers need to 'loosen the pipes' before singing....)

[Jonzo]

I honestly don't see how your posts have been lacking in personal attacks but whatever...

For all the accusations of made up statistics and "proof", it's just air. You can get on the internet and blow about how people don't have proof of things which are not quantifiable that way, and now, you're the expert demanding that the rest of the jazz world who actually plays music prove something to you. You've personally insulted many respected long-time contributors to this forum who've contributed not only words but examples of their playing to illustrate concepts and techniques that actually work. The proof is in their playing.

By the way, as a teacher, I'm totally down with the idea that the best teachers aren't always the best players. Very often the coaches who've had to struggle more are really skilled at teaching others to excel for the very reason that it wasn't just "natural" for them. As a teacher, (not a jazz instructor, mind you) I'd definitely put myself into that category.

Where's the proof there?

It's in their students. If you're going to make that argument, you've got to coach your team more successfully than the coaches who were also excellent players. Honestly, in the realm of jazz guitar, I don't have either "proof". What would you say about the students/emulators of players like Joe Pass, Wes Montgomery or even Jack Zucker. In addition to their performance abilities, they've got quantifiable measured results through what they've produced in terms of students who can really play, their own written and recorded material, as well as other intangibles such as legitimate influence on this forum and elsewhere.

What do you do when you're trying to find the answer to something that is largely subjective anyway? I believe it's common practice to ask the experts in said field of interest. That's been thoroughly hashed out here already. The fact is that if you're going to make an insulting statement like...



You've got to actually demonstrate that statement with proof, don't you? "Classical players don't improvise and they play others music..." isn't proof anymore than the "proof" others have suggested in this thread by relating what the greats actually said about learning to play.

If the consensus among those who play jazz at a high level is against you, in addition to the consensus of professionals in jazz education who (regardless of their own playing ability) have a track record of producing excellent jazz players from their students, then isn't the burden on you to "prove" that they're all clueless, the-world-is-flat, stick-in-the-mud, traditionalists who don't really know anything?

You could argue with Stephen Hawking about his "unproven" theories. But if go there, in front of a group of scientists, saying he's demonstrably wrong, you're going to want to have "proof" otherwise. He's got real respect from a substantial body of work.

But this is the internet....

Just ripe for us bloviators...

Here is the proof:

If
one learns other people's solos,
Then
one will be able to improvise

Classical and other non-improvising musicians learn other people's solos, but cannot improvise.

Therefore
If one learns other people's solos, one will be able to improvise is false.

If you don't think this is proof, then you do not understand what a classical proof is.

This does not, however, prove that transcription is useless, and I never claimed it did.

However, I also challenge your opinion that transcription is the current consensus. It could just be confirmation bias. My evidence is the many jazz method books, by high level players, that do not make reference to transcription. Also, my sons take lessons from high level players, who do not have them transcribing. After two years, they are able to play a two-hour set of improvised music at a high enough level to get offered more paid gigs by the patrons who hear them.

At the time "the Greats" were developing their techniques, there were no other methods. Likewise, Beethoven did not use a metronome, until it was invented.

I have proven that learning other people's solos alone will not necessarily make you an improviser. I have provided an example demonstrating that one can learn to improvise without transcribing. I have illustrated that there is not necessarily a consensus on transcription, and given reasons why "the greats" would have had to use transcription by default.

I think this shows that I am not demanding some impossible ideal of "proof". By your standard, every jazz teacher out there who is not using transcription is in denial of a proven fact. Given the reasons above, I take issue with that.

Still, I could be wrong.

I'm really not interested in discussing who has the authority to speak on these matters. People can take or leave what I have said. Your playing backs up your opinions to some degree, but doesn't necessarily make you right. Good players disagree. Also, someone can be right in their opinion, even when they are wrong in thinking that they have proven it.

Who did I insult?

[mr. beaumont]

Bad use of logic.

Classical musicians, first of all, don't follow the same process when copying, right? Classical musicians don't sit down and figure out a concerto by ear--they look at sheet music. So one, the process of copping licks trains the ear.

Secondly, the classical musician "copies" set pieces of music that, while open to some interpretation, are not generally flexible...

The jazz musician goes into the process of transcription understanding that the things they copy are flexible...they can be played in other keys, other registers on the instrument.


Three good transcriptions (or a month of copping random licks off records the musician likes, if they aren't into the idea of a whole solo) gives them a basket of flexible licks to pick from and string together in new ways.

It's a completely different process.

[GuyBoden]

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.

Well said, that's indeed the truth.........................

I'm as guilty as anyone for giving out advice about a subject that is just my hobby....

[Jonzo]

Bad use of logic.

Classical musicians, first of all, don't follow the same process when copying, right? Classical musicians don't sit down and figure out a concerto by ear--they look at sheet music. So one, the process of copping licks trains the ear.

Secondly, the classical musician "copies" set pieces of music that, while open to some interpretation, are not generally flexible...

The jazz musician goes into the process of transcription understanding that the things they copy are flexible...they can be played in other keys, other registers on the instrument.


Three good transcriptions (or a month of copping random licks off records the musician likes, if they aren't into the idea of a whole solo) gives them a basket of flexible licks to pick from and string together in new ways.

It's a completely different process.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Bad use of logic." Either an argument is logical, or not. It isn't good or bad. I think maybe you mean that it is not relevant to how jazz musicians actually practice, and that could be correct. My statement was simply that copying solos alone will not necessarily make you an improviser. I'm surprised anyone finds this controversial.

Also, don't we all know jazz musicians who have learned other people's solos by ear, but freeze up when asked to improvise? You are arguing toward the idea that transcription can teach improvisation, when used as a basis for improvisation, and I agree. I don't think you are arguing that just learning solos--by any method--will make you an improviser.

[mr. beaumont]

Ok, i ammend to "illogical argument."

And as for freezing up, no actually, not really.

The guys I know who freeze up are the ones who thought they had to memorize every drop 2 and 3 voicing before they could learn "all of me."