-
After taking Gary Burton jazz improvisation class on Coursera - it seems that one way to proceed for relative beginner when learning new tune is to analyze harmony and discern the proper set(s) of scales to use over it.
My own way is to figure out scales and/or to look for "model solo" for a tune (something written with didactic purpose in mind) - see what type of scales are used and memorize parts of it. Then look up solos by well known players and grab some phrases.
Then when I play I usually have a some idea of type of phrase I want to play - more on a rhythmic level rather than melodic (my melodic imagination is not that strong) - and I execute it trying to use scales, phrases etc that I learned before. I do consciously think "ok this is minor 251" and try to tap into my (not very big) bag of phrases but rarely I rarely end up playing something note for note.
So my question is how does the the process work on more advance level? Do you analyze new tune for scales or can you do it on the spot? How big is your bag of phrases? Can you pull something from it and play it note for note? Is there a moment when you step into empty elevator shaft and play without trying to exert rational control over the process? What guides your choices then?
Maybe these are wrong questions but I am trying to find some way to practice to take me a step farther beyond reacting (or even anticipating) changes in a very rational way.
-
08-10-2014 01:22 PM
-
Originally Posted by woland
Anyway . . that's how I see it.
-
I had the habit to play on spot for years,until I Saw a women who played "Renaissance music" on a luth.
She asthonished me;after her concert,I had a long discussion with her.
She said:If you Will be interesting,whatever the music you play,analyse the scales and modes and Write your improvisation on a paper.With this manner to do,you CAN deeply understand what you are doing.
If you play on the spot,you Will return in your old prefered pads
cheers
HB
-
If I'm playing a typical standard or jazz classic no prep work is necessary. However with some very modern jazz tunes with creative forms and uncommon chords it requires a little prep work for me.
-
Like Patrick2 said you spend years in the woodshed preparing for as many situations as you can standard tunes, cycles of chords, modal vamps, and boatloads of chord voicing. Then in the real world you use the time you are given be that charts given ahead of a gig, or a minute before a take in the studio look over a chart, or on the band stand and someone points at you and says SOLO. In that last situation you're first chorus you're years of ear training is your prep, the second chorus you've seen the chord progression and now developing some ideas from that woodshed experience, by third chorus you should be in the zone, if not they are going to yell SOLO to someone else next time.
-
I ALWAYS think chords. I never think scales. I use scales but never think them or modes. Obviously I use then but I never refer to them or plan out by thinking about them. But chords are the thing. I can do anything with them as long as I understand them and the source.
-
Originally Posted by Patrick2
Last edited by woland; 08-10-2014 at 04:12 PM.
-
Originally Posted by henryrobinett
-
Originally Posted by docbop
-
Like many others, I have many, many years of studying and playing standards as well as analyzing and studying/transcribing many of my favorite musicians. I almost always play by ear because it is easier for me than reading the music. I love playing and composing/creating music and don't plan beyond picking songs for a particular gig. I always try to match the tunes with the anticipated audience.
wiz
-
Originally Posted by Hyppolyte Bergamotte
-
Writing it down is a student process. It's a learning process and is encouraged by band directors who have novice student players. But the purpose of jazz is improv. The challenge is to play each performance newly and to not rely on your old patterns.
-
^^^ Henry's spot on here. Improvisation is creativity. That creativity can and does come in different ways. To analyze and then write something down is indeed creativity. But, not extemporaneous on the fly creativity. However, as a student . . it's kind of a "walk before you can run" scenario. By analyzing and writing something down, a student will definitelty be able to improvise on the fly . . after a while and as he/she progresses. So, maybe that's what the woman hyppolyte referred to was saying? Maybe she was speaking to the process of understanding what you're improvising as you grow into being able to do it on the fly?
-
Originally Posted by henryrobinett
-
Originally Posted by woland
-
It's similar to someone who has read and studied a language so that they can have complex conversations about esoteric ideas, expressing themselves spontaneously as well as scholarly in an organized and thoughtful dialoge and not have to think about it.
-
Originally Posted by henryrobinett
-
LOL. No it's not harder. It's just relative. The answer will differ with each person. There is no one answer.
-
Originally Posted by henryrobinett
So if that is true why would answer differ from person to person - we all have more or less similar soft hardware in our craniums - we load it with patterns coming from same musical tradition. What I suspect happens is that each brain links that musical data base to some non-musical ideas in a different way. Such process (of analyzing and linking) occurs in our brains all the time without conscious awareness of it.
So what we think as creative may already be there in some predetermined form.
-
Originally Posted by Pat Clare
-
woland - I typed a very detailed response. I'm sorry tapatalk ate it. Here's a recreation:
First of all I reject the notion from your trippy teacher. Secondly I believe we are all individual beings. We differ in our goals, purposes, desires, dreams, ambitions, needs, visions, aesthetic tastes, etc. We are not all the same person.
You can have one person who started playing guitar by age 8 and did nothing but play guitar. Took lessons and applied himself. Another didn't start until his late 20s and played an hour ever other night. Some value improv. Others not so much. Some get it right off the bat. Others never really do.
We all learn at different rates. We are all individuals. We are not the same.
-
Like Henry said, I'm thinking chords.
For me, I'm thinking chord grips and working my way through a progression over the chord grips I might use. Often my chord choices tend to work down the neck. So my improv often moves down the neck also.
Henry's an advanced player, I'm not. I'm more of the practice 5 hours a week kind of guy right now. So I have to prepare to get acceptable results (to me). My preparation is to noodle over the chords a lot until I've got a bunch of "path ways" I can pick and choose from. Sometimes I'll hear new lines and play them or stop to figure them out.
Here's an example of my noodling/preparation (this is a very familiar tune for me). You can probably see which chord grips I'm playing over:
Last edited by fep; 08-11-2014 at 07:25 PM.
-
Originally Posted by woland
Not mocking you here woland . . well, I guess I am but in a fun loving way. I'm just trying to suggest that you're really over analyzing this whole subject of the spontaneity of improvising.
It's this simple; we study and we learn, then we practice what we've studied and learned, then we apply in spontaneity . . (ergo improvised lines based upon what we've studied, practiced and learned) . . when we blow over chord changes.
Why it's different from person to person . . is simply because each person is different for any other.
-
Originally Posted by Patrick2
As for over-analyzing - it is the problem of quantity becoming quality for me. You study, you read books, you memorize lines (very hard thing for me since I do not have well developed melodic memory - I remember rhythms much easier than sequence of tones). Then at some point it is time to take a step forward and go beyond. How is it done - by abstraction from detail, developing intuition? I used to work as a skiing instructor when I was in college and it was interesting idea where you had to deconstruct motion pattern that you had completely automated, teach it step by step to students and then guide them so they could achieve their own automation.
-
Originally Posted by woland
You sighted a very good example of how as a ski instructor you had to deconstruct what you already had put on auto pilot. So now . . ask yourself if a person wanting to learn jazz guitar and had absolutely no theory and harmony knowledge . . but had played just simple basic rock & roll . . and now wanted to learn how to solo over jazz chord changes . . what you instruct him to do? After you taught him the fingerings for the scales and arps . . explained the intervals, tensions, resolutions, enclosures, leading tones . . etc., how would you tell him to approach an improv over a ii V I . . . instead of the basic pents over a I IV V that he's been used to playing all his life?
"To teach, is to learn twice" So, as you're pretending to teach this make believe student . . you're actually deconstructing relearning and applying what you've already learned, just as you did when you were a ski instructor.
Peter Sprague & Leonard Patton "Can't Find My Way...
Today, 07:47 PM in The Songs