Dude says - I play what I hear

[bako]

Bako, - safe to say we're on different sides of the river on this. I don't want to take away the 'magic' from jazz improvisation - but if you don't know your stuff on the instrument, i.e. how to correctly outline chord changes - then how else are you supposed to do it?

Question for you - you're onstage, and having to play a standard at say 190bpm (quick but by no means fast) - could be 'How High The Moon' (something that cycles through key centres) - if you don't believe in having a system of lines (I call them cells) for outlining the changes, how would you approach it? I personally don't think it can be done otherwise in this context. It's all well and good to say 'I believe in improvisation', but what exactly does that mean in concrete terms?

It is fully possible that we have a smaller body of water than a river between our viewpoints.

Knowing your instrument and music, to the best of your ability is a given, is it not?
Possessing the skill to navigate basic harmonic movements of the composition is a starting reference to build upon.
I have nothing against studying systems of lines or cells. It lends insight into melodic/harmonic movement possibilities.
The next level is studying the mechanisms by which rhythmic/intervallic/contour motifs are developed or not into larger statements. Interesting to think about the impact of what the rest of the band is playing.
Would the soloist have played the same if accompanied by Band in a Box instead of Max Roach, Tony Williams,
Elvin Jones, Dafnis Prieto? In my opinion, no they wouldn't.

It is impossible for a musician such as myself, with my mortal skills to think of not preparing from as many vantage points as possible, but what I am prepping for is the attempt to engage in a real dialogue.
This is what I listen for in recordings/performances. It is what I expect myself to reach for as a player.

I start to shut down, when I hear improvisation described like it is a crossword puzzle to be filled in or
a collection a pre-existing licks to be assembled. What kind of conversation can result from this approach.

A puddle, a river or an ocean of difference between us? You tell me.

Can anyone point me towards Charlie Parker speaking on his own behalf, describing his approach to improvisation?

[Reg]

It all works... personally I have no problems figuring out crossword puzzles while I perform what's in my head, or how ever we want to call natural improvisation.

That's just the way I work. I can usually be taking a solo or reading a part and also still have a conversation going on. I have the technical BS together, I understand Music.

I can also push myself, be on the edge and make mistakes... part of my enjoyment is recovering from Crash and Burn situations. And again, I'm nobody and am just somewhere in the middle of the pack as far as players go.

bako... pre-existing licks, cells... what ever... are just training wheels. I believe eventually one begins to trust one's conscious and unconscious self... performance self, it all becomes part of our performance self.

I play lots of different styles of gigs... I need to be aware of what I'm playing, even when I'm using what I consider to be MY STYLE... it needs to work. Generally what I play needs to make the product sound better, make the front person or soloist sound better... definitely don't want to upstage or draw too much attention.... that's still my goal even when the gigs are mine... I want the music to sound right to the audience.

With out audiences... what are we even doing.

[princeplanet]

I'm definitely with you on Bird - good point. But I'd say the motivic guys are the easiest to recognise in terms of the cell thing. Raney had a system of cells you'd hear him use over and over again. Particularly in the 70's/80's he had this descending lick you'd hear almost half a dozen times each solo. I'd hum it for you if I could (well I can't type it) and I reckon you'd recognise it, if you regularly listened to his playing from that period. In fact I'd say Raney is the poster child for the whole 'cell thing' with bop guitar, particularly the later stuff.

Interesting you think that about Raney, perhaps I haven't listened enough, but often wondered what his "system" was.
I guess I was trying to make the point that motivic based players probably take more chances if they are spinning variations they've never explored before in the midst of improv. The Raney I have heard sounds like that's what he's doing.

Would be interesting to hear some suggestions from the forum regarding players (any instrument) they feel are continually spinning new lines with little reliance on prefab material?..... Presumably these players would lay claim to following their mind's ear to a greater extent than other types of players.

Of course whether or not such playing is deemed more or less compelling by listeners (educated or not) - now that would be another interesting discussion!

[Vladan]

When someone says "I play what I hear in my head.", I imagine person's being able to follow auditory hallucinations on the instrument in real time.

If it just means "I know exactly what I'm going to play next, at any moment, all the time.", that is completely different kind of statement.
Also, it could be true statement, or false. It could be true if you always play only what you have learned. But then, if you had to learn it, it means there was a time when you did not know it, which means at one time you did not know what you were going to play next, which means "always" is not really true.
Does it actually mean, then, you have no idea what you're about to do, unless you have rehearsed the situation in advance? No it does not.
In reality, I think, while playing, we all have 2 "inner voice" guidelines. One is musical, melodic and rhythmic, singing voice, making the song out of underlying backing at the time frame, and we all kind of follow it, augment it, comp around it ... , it's the idea we have about the issue.
Also there is the speaking one, theoretical and rational one.
I may be playing, following the idea of melody, when suddenly I find my self speaking, "hm, think I'd like to hear something arpeggio like". Then I do play (or don't play, ther's always the possibility of making choice) something arpeggio like, for what I believe will work, where really good players pull out an arpeggio based lick they know will work for sure.

Very important thing is what Reg said, about taking chances and making mistakes.
Reading the forum, it looks like nobody ever makes a mistake. Speaking of greats, they are all flawless and always know what to do. Well, not really. Otherwise there would not be discarded and alternate takes while making records and so on.
Also it is important because it makes distinction btw playing for the sake of making music and composing as opposed to playing for the audience, where player is expected to deliver flawless and mistake free performance.

In practice, I think, since there are only two possible directions to/from any particular note, as well as the limited number of distances to travel, what one do is hear the actual note in reference to the backing and guided by inner voice decides which way and how far to go, repeatedly, through all the keys and turnarounds he may find along the way. From time to time a rehearsed situation will be recognized, suitable for showing prefab lick. With experience and practice there are more and more such situations, and longer and longer passages you can predict, with more accuracy. Still, at the time of playing, I think the inner voice will eventually take over and force you to make variation to the prefigured plan.

I think it was Marc drawing parallel with speaking, when you say something out loud and immediately regret it. I think he was spot on.
Have you ever found your self playing something and thinking, "hey, this is not what I expected, but it's good, all the same."?
If yes, it means at that time frame you did not play what you've heard, but at the same time it means there were occasions when you did, those times when you've noticed nothing unusual.
Mistakes are not telling the same thing, because there you react to auditory stimulation, regardless of underlying idea.

[zigzag]

My ultimate goal in practicing was to be able to play what is in my head. Now that I know that's impossible, what do I do now?

[mr. beaumont]

It's impossible?

[princeplanet]

... settle for the "possible"?....

[pkirk]

my take on this: There's a difference between "hearing" and "knowing" (Apologies for the overuse of scare quotes)

while practicing, we all have time to explore many ideas generated by calculation or assimilation rather than "hearing it". It could happen while transcribing, or applying some theoretical concept, or reading a book of patterns or licks, or working out ideas based on other things you know, etc. The interesting thing to me is that every player reacts differently to this "source" practice material: some ideas immediately stick in your mind and can be drawn on in real playing immediately (i.e. you can "hear it" right away), some are so compelling that the you decide to practice the idea hard for a long time until it can be used (you can "hear it", but only after a lot of work/time), and some just never seems to stick, i.e. you teach your fingers to move in the right way, you play it over and over to commit it to your ear, but it never makes its way deeply into your improv vocabulary, despite it being fully "known", and typically disappears once you stop practicing it.

But all the things you practice are easy to remember intellectually. So most competent players can talk about all the stuff they "know", e.g. enclosures, intervallic, across the bar line, sideslipping, pentatonics, playing on top or behind, etc etc, the million things that get discussed here all the time. Every player knows a whole lot more than they can use naturally.

On the bandstand, typically only those things that one "hears" come out. Sure, you can force your fingers to wiggle in the manner that the last week of practice taught you, but everyone knows it sounds lame when you do that, only the things you hear internally and control without thought sound musical. So in that sense you either play what you hear, or what you play sounds lousy. At least that is how it works for me.

There are many good but not great players who have practiced many different things, and "know" a lot of the ingredients that go into playing jazz, but every one of their solos sound similar because the things they really "hear" is much more limited than the things they "know". That's certainly true for me, most of my licks I use I had internalized 20 years ago. Many of the pros/revered players
on the local scene or on the internet sound great until you've listened to them more than a few times and realize that what they hear isn't that broad, and so what they offer tends to be limited.

I think what makes a *great* player is the combination of chops and
a knack for quickly placing an idea in the "hear it" category. That second one is a rare thing indeed.

[Klatu]

But all the things you practice are easy to remember intellectually. So most competent players can talk about all the stuff they "know", e.g. enclosures, intervallic, across the bar line, sideslipping, pentatonics, playing on top or behind, etc etc, the million things that get discussed here all the time. Every player knows a whole lot more than they can use naturally.

On the bandstand, typically only those things that one "hears" come out. Sure, you can force your fingers to wiggle in the manner that the last week of practice taught you, but everyone knows it sounds lame when you do that, only the things you hear internally and control without thought sound musical. So in that sense you either play what you hear, or what you play sounds lousy. At least that is how it works for me.

Very insightful. Thanks for the contribution.

In fact, there are often times in practice where I force myself to add elements to my playing that I'm not fully comfortable with and don't hear clearly. My hope is that with enough practice, the sounds will naturally emanate from my playing.

[zigzag]

The voices in my head aren't singing.

[princeplanet]

I think what makes a *great* player is the combination of chops and
a knack for quickly placing an idea in the "hear it" category. That second one is a rare thing indeed.

Great points. It's kinda scary to think that some of the things we work on a lot may never come to us in the heat of an improv. We know them, we may even hear them when we practice, or even in the shower, but these things may not occur to us, or present themselves as playable possibilities when we are composing our solos in real time.

Won't stop me trying though!

[dingusmingus]

[3625]

But all the things you practice are easy to remember intellectually. So most competent players can talk about all the stuff they "know", e.g. enclosures, intervallic, across the bar line, sideslipping, pentatonics, playing on top or behind, etc etc, the million things that get discussed here all the time. Every player knows a whole lot more than they can use naturally.

I found the whole post good to read because it gave me an insight into another players head on this - but like you pointed out, there are different personal definitions of 'knowing' and 'hearing'. For me, knowing a concept means I can play it - make music with it. Onstage being the ultimate test of that. If I can't do that then I don't really know it, I only 'half know it' which for me doesn't cut it.

But that's my own personal distinction - so if I can hear it, I really know it - if I can't hear it yet, it's not much good to me from a playing perspective.

Re: thinking a bit more about the whole cell thing - it's a living concept, not a bunch of dead rehashed mini-licks, if perhaps that what some people might think. That's what I enjoy about it, because the combinations you can come up with on the spot are endless. I find it gives more options to actually improvise, not less. By chunking little groups of 2 notes, 4 notes, etc. I really believe it gives you more space to think and be creative - similar to the way chess players think in combinations.

Bako - seems like it's less a river and more a puddle

[Reg]

I can't tell what's out of tune...

Look most of you haven't put near enough organized time into being able to play like you want. And then get into the actual performance time, gigs where your not just playing memorized whatever, gigs where you don't know what your going to play until you get on stage, just before or when you see the charts on stage etc...

If you really want to get your soloing together... learn how to accompany in a jazz style. Which means you need to listen and play what the soloist is hearing, not just what your able to hear.

Again it's just music... your not saving lives or changing the world.

When you start listening... your going to start hearing and eventually play what's in your hear...

You want to get better at playing what you hear... put in 6 months at 4 to 6 hrs a day. If you can't for whatever reason, lower your expectations and enjoy making music.

[3625]

That was right on the money - great find. His lines were really musical and he explained it all so well.

[mr. beaumont]

I can't tell what's out of tune...

Look most of you haven't put near enough organized time into being able to play like you want. And then get into the actual performance time, gigs where your not just playing memorized whatever, gigs where you don't know what your going to play until you get on stage, just before or when you see the charts on stage etc...

If you really want to get your soloing together... learn how to accompany in a jazz style. Which means you need to listen and play what the soloist is hearing, not just what your able to hear.

Again it's just music... your not saving lives or changing the world.

When you start listening... your going to start hearing and eventually play what's in your hear...

You want to get better at playing what you hear... put in 6 months at 4 to 6 hrs a day. If you can't for whatever reason, lower your expectations and enjoy making music.

Thanks for this.

We might start with the amount of time some have spent philosophizing on or trying to "debunk" the concept of playing what you hear, or what hearing is, etc...

[MarkRhodes]

I think it was Marc drawing parallel with speaking, when you say something out loud and immediately regret it. I think he was spot on.
Have you ever found your self playing something and thinking, "hey, this is not what I expected, but it's good, all the same."?
If yes, it means at that time frame you did not play what you've heard, but at the same time it means there were occasions when you did, those times when you've noticed nothing unusual.
Mistakes are not telling the same thing, because there you react to auditory stimulation, regardless of underlying idea.

Yes, that was me. I've had that happen several times (-the saying something aloud and immediately realizing it wasn't not so smart after all but rather silly and just plain wrong) and also the thing you mention: doing something I did not expect to do and going, "Whoa, that's cool." This is how I tend to write songs! (It's also how I prepared for essay tests in college: I would pretend I was the teacher being asked questions and I would riff on answers, not knowing where I was going, and when something keen came out, I made a mental note of it and used it in the essay.) It's interesting sometimes to make yourself do something you would not ordinarily do. It might suck. Or it might be so-so. It might sound like a clam. Or it might make you go, "Whoa, that's the sh*t right there!" I make a note of those last ones and forget the others.

[3625]

Thanks for this.

We might start with the amount of time some have spent philosophizing on or trying to "debunk" the concept of playing what you hear, or what hearing is, etc...

I get why you made the comment, mainly out of support for Reg's contribution here and the experience he brings to the table - which I respect - but that aside, it's been a good thread. It's really getting down into some serious aspects of playing that hardly get talked about. So many guys talk about substitutions, melodic minor stuff, etc. but a lot of the things being discussed here gets to the core of what's needed to establish a firm foundation of actually making music - especially in terms of sorting out the myths from reality.

It's just talking shop - makes a break from gear threads.

[Stevebol]

The voices in my head aren't singing.

Mine don't even agree with each other.

[mr. beaumont]

I get why you made the comment, mainly out of support for Reg's contribution here and the experience he brings to the table - which I respect - but that aside, it's been a good thread. It's really getting down into some serious aspects of playing that hardly get talked about. So many guys talk about substitutions, melodic minor stuff, etc. but a lot of the things being discussed here gets to the core of what's needed to establish a firm foundation of actually making music - especially in terms of sorting out the myths from reality.

It's just talking shop - makes a break from gear threads.

Well, I definitely appreciate any time we talk about the actual playing as opposed to just more gear.

I guess I see this as a really simple topic that's getting muddied by a lot of semantics, people disagreeing with common meanings of terms, and attempts to debunk a concept rather than understand it. I feel overall that while interesting, conversations of this manner are usually just tail-chasing.

[3625]

I feel overall that while interesting, conversations of this manner are usually just tail-chasing.

Yep, you're right there. I've done a fair bit of tail chasing on this one, mainly to justify earlier points I made.

[christianm77]

Now here's the thing, I know there are musical freaks out there, and I've known at least one, that have magical ears, and probably can play what they hear, whether it's in their head, or from somewhere else. However, that's quite a different level when compared to guys who have learned to sing what they know they can play. When guys say they can play what they hear, they usually are just "hearing" what they know, or just singing what they're playing. I'm just not as impressed as most people seem to be.

What do you guys think?

I think there is a lot of truth to that, and I know that's something I do myself.

I can sing everything I play. It's harder to play everything you can sing.....

It's something I'm keen to improve my ears all the time. It seems there are quite a few things you can do to improve your ears, but I'm not happy with how it is at the moment.

Because it is a learnable skill I wouldn't use the term 'musical freaks' - although some people are frighteningly good at it. I would argue learning to do this (play by ear) is the most important skill.... It's also the most humbling to work at which is perhaps why it is so hard.

[christianm77]

Here's an exercise I've been working on - let me know what you think, as I came up with it myself.

I notice that sometimes, I kind of 'hear' the note that my finger is going to. It's kind of a bit like NLP I guess - the idea of 'anchoring.'

So I figured, why not invent a guitar anchoring exercise for ear training.

So now what I do is I finger the notes on the guitar (a melody say) - don't play them (mute with the right hand) and sing them, trying to avoid mistakes. I then play the phrase to check if I am right.

Seems quite fun to do with Christmas songs as it's that time of year, and I definitely know how the tunes go.

[Vladan]

If I could sing all I could play, I'd be singer. There's much more money in it.

Also, to continue on funny side, I always play what I hear in my head, but that is rarely what the rest of the band plays.

[christianm77]

If I could sing all I could play, I'd be singer. There's much more money in it.

Also, to continue on funny side, I always play what I hear in my head, but that is rarely what the rest of the band plays.

Haha

I didn't say I sang it well ;-)

Actually there's a serious point in there - some times what's in my head is at odds with everyone else, and I get cross that 'they don't get it.' And then I realise I'm missing the point :-)