Why deny the role of improvisation in jazz?

[fumblefingers]

Sure. I'm just saying that time spent frustrated that people are disenfranchised with improvisation is time wasted. Then again ... Thinking about WHY that may have happened might be instructive and point to some trends in mainstream jazz that are alienating listeners. Not saying I agree or disagree w anyone but rather pointing to a train of thought that might be productive.

i think that it has more to do with appealing style and spirit, composition, melodic soloing, and great musicianship. oh yeah, and not too long solos. i think that a lot of people - even people who aren't what we would term jazz fans - respond pretty well to that.

it's when we produce music that is atonal, outside, free, introspective, dark, meandering, compositionally boring, arcane, esoteric, over indulgent, non-virtuosic (is that a word?), that the number of listeners tends to fall off. or is that, tends to fall way off?

but as Henry said, its not pop, so you have to follow your heart, so to speak. but you also reap what you sow. if an artist can live with that, they should do whatever they please.

[Jonah]

I have to ask- how could anyone listen to jazz- especially after bebop began- and not understand that improvisation is a central pillar of the music?

very simply... it's not labelled 'imrpovization' - you just listen to it like to a completed piece of music.. you just do not know how it's made.. you like the feel produced by musical means and you want to reproduce it..

of course it is the beginning stage if one gets deeper then gets to the point... but often people just play Broadway melodies, standards arrangement - and they sound jazz too...

You know - important issuse there thse is not just improvization in jazz... there is jazz improvization

It is not emphasized often and misleads

[CP40Carl]

What a fascinating thread.

For me, improvisation is at the heart of Jazz and serves to set it apart from Classical and other music genres. If a renowned jazz player like Count Basie simply plays back a song and makes no effort to improvise, either as a solo or comping, then to me he is still a jazz player albeit he is no longer playing jazz.

However, just to confuse matters, we all know that historically improvisation was standard fare for classical players. Mozart was a great improviser, aswas Liszt. In fact Liszt would take Wagner arias and improvise over them. More modern classical musicians like Horowitz and Rubenstein were also known as improvisers in the early part of their careers. In part, a lot of the improvisations stopped following the development of printed musical notation; classical musicians could then simply compose pieces and then sell the sheet music.

I find this whole area fascinating and have read a lot of books on the subject. However, problem for me is that my own definition of jazz as being based largely on improvised music when in fact all 'jazz' did was reinvent the wheel on the back of the early classical masters. Sure, some will say that the 'wheel' was augmented by 'blue notes' or the blues or swing or whatever although nothing was really new about the blues cadence or blue notes either.

So what if a classical guitarist improvises? Is that jazz? Ralph Towner has been put in both categories, as have many others.

My own view is that all these 'labels' for genres of music, which were largely introduced by early radio stations in any event, are probably not at all helpful. They serve to divide the music community and place us into boxes.

There is good music and there is bad music, it is a matter of taste. My definition of jazz requires that there be an element of improvisation. This categorisation, however, does not stand up to intellectual rigeur although it works for me.

I'd better stop there...great posts on this.

[Jonah]

actually this thread almost immidatelly tries to come around the definition of jazz... I am not 'a definition guy'.. yes it helps to bring clarity... but unfortunately in discussion we often forget conventional nature of any definition (what works good for math speculation, not always good for arts)... so we get clarity but we come to generalizations, to exceptions... not necesary actually - and which is even worse - we refer to didfinition often as to something given and fixed while the essence is ever - changing...

Even in this thread the meaning of the word 'jazz' was extended both historically - in the part and in the future and past - and in style to all possible fusions... even tehse extensions are perplexed and interconnected...

I can only outline vaguely my feeling - (I feel sometimes that is jazz, and that is not for me.. and I will try to bring some logical backgound to this perception - because I really belive if you feel some integrity there is something behind it you can explain is you want... it does not mean it cannot change - not looking for solid gounds or objective truths here)...

So fisrtly for me origins of jazz lie in the special social enviroment - in a degree more than with any stage of European classical tradition development - it is strongly connected with very special national mentality of US which - in my opinion - by the end of 19th century reached the point when it could bring up the best of its original culture (and which resulted in jazz, movies and unique American litrature and poetry of the 20th centuray first of all)...
I think special understanding of the notion ' freedom' is one of the traits what differs significantly amreican mentality from that of the European... and the fact that the country where it has been so important from the very beginnig encountered the problem of slavery made it even more strong...
I do not want to go deep right now... but I think the fact that jazz was born as improvizational music is strongly connected with cultural reflection of idea of liberation - not directly as a manifest, but intuitively... - and not actual steps in gradual liberation of African-American people from segregation and discremenation, but also gradual mental and spiritual liberation of some parts of the white Americancommunity from inner contradictions and inner limitations which are inevitable..

This also gave special features to jazz improvizations which I will try to summarize in comparison to classical

1) it is based on principle of deliberate liberty - of course it should be convincing (as any liberties should have grounds) - it will be familiarity and negligence instead...
classical tradition of improvization does not consider liberty as an idea at all... European liberty is tricky net of limitations.

2) novelty - in jazz idea of novely has always been on top and always concious - to bring some new idea was something expected. I speak of it neamely as part of creative mentality.. we can see it even in a way jazz players of old days speak about playing, gigs they had how often they emphisized novelty in someone's playing...
It classical music it has never been so important.

3) practice - jazz origined in practical art, actually you caanot do jazz if you do not play... so the idea of improvization comes out quite naturally - how else real crative power can be realized if the only real crative process here starts when you play the first note?
in classical... well to be true I think also that at least you should... but written traditon gives the possibility to avoid it...

4) reference - jazz originally needed some referential point to start from... some changes to play through.. many things changed of course but in general this is still of of the important part of jazz mentality.
In calssical improvization they had reference to the general idea of the form... only variations are the form more or less close to jazz model

5) solo nature of jazz - it came from singing from voice - it is my voice, it is I... so improvization is also practically inevitable... this also leads to domination of narrative concept... relatively simple (looking from outside at least)..
No need to say that concept of soloist is quite limited in classical tradition and even then it is seldom realized as directly as just 'singing' - because mostly it is realized by composers (not players) who take soloist as a part of their creative concept.


And all these qualities make paradoxal point: jazz is so highly practical that it cannot avoid connection with material equipment and eviroment - it is rooted in certain time and place stylistically and it is hard to take it out of it... on the other hand in its essence there is such and aspiration to liberty and to novelty that it has to easily adopt any new idea...

This makes also this discussion paradoxal too... the subject itself is ilusive because for serious analysis we need to define limits - but if we want to be true to our feeling we cannot do that... on the other hand to certain extent we can feel that jazz belongs in a great deal to the past and it provokes an attempet to analyze and specify it...


No conclusions... no statements .. open discussional topic for me... and intersting of course...

[Vladan]

I don't think it's paradoxical, I think it's dialectic, which is The Driving Force for the most part of everything known to man.

[bako]

I find this whole area fascinating and have read a lot of books on the subject. However, problem for me is that my own definition of jazz as being based largely on improvised music when in fact all 'jazz' did was reinvent the wheel on the back of the early classical masters. Sure, some will say that the 'wheel' was augmented by 'blue notes' or the blues or swing or whatever although nothing was really new about the blues cadence or blue notes either.

Check out The Music Of Black Americans: (A History) by Dr. Eileen Southern

Jazz and all early music in the Americas by people of African descent had certain common features and tendencies.
These didn't come to pass by performers making a creative decision to augment classical music.
Improvisation and variation was a norm of music making within many African cultures. Triplet feel in rhythm is more common than even 8th's and so are what we came to refer to as blue notes, call and response structures,
communal participation and the idea of a master drummer "soloist".

The musical making of African people in the Americas was continuance of their inherent cultural DNA.
The roots of jazz emerged from this wellspring.

I think that while it is possible for jazz composers to create effective through composed music,
improvisation remains at the core of the style.

[pushkar000]

For what its worth, I would like to add that it is only recently that improvisation has lost its importance in most of western music.
Throughout the history of western music, improvisation has always been a core aspect of musicianship.

[fumblefingers]

actually this thread almost immidatelly tries to come around the definition of jazz... I am not 'a definition guy'.. yes it helps to bring clarity... but unfortunately in discussion we often forget conventional nature of any definition (what works good for math speculation, not always good for arts)... so we get clarity but we come to generalizations, to exceptions... not necesary actually - and which is even worse - we refer to didfinition often as to something given and fixed while the essence is ever - changing...

Even in this thread the meaning of the word 'jazz' was extended both historically - in the part and in the future and past - and in style to all possible fusions... even tehse extensions are perplexed and interconnected...

I can only outline vaguely my feeling - (I feel sometimes that is jazz, and that is not for me.. and I will try to bring some logical backgound to this perception - because I really belive if you feel some integrity there is something behind it you can explain is you want... it does not mean it cannot change - not looking for solid gounds or objective truths here)...

So fisrtly for me origins of jazz lie in the special social enviroment - in a degree more than with any stage of European classical tradition development - it is strongly connected with very special national mentality of US which - in my opinion - by the end of 19th century reached the point when it could bring up the best of its original culture (and which resulted in jazz, movies and unique American litrature and poetry of the 20th centuray first of all)...
I think special understanding of the notion ' freedom' is one of the traits what differs significantly amreican mentality from that of the European... and the fact that the country where it has been so important from the very beginnig encountered the problem of slavery made it even more strong...
I do not want to go deep right now... but I think the fact that jazz was born as improvizational music is strongly connected with cultural reflection of idea of liberation - not directly as a manifest, but intuitively... - and not actual steps in gradual liberation of African-American people from segregation and discremenation, but also gradual mental and spiritual liberation of some parts of the white Americancommunity from inner contradictions and inner limitations which are inevitable..

This also gave special features to jazz improvizations which I will try to summarize in comparison to classical

1) it is based on principle of deliberate liberty - of course it should be convincing (as any liberties should have grounds) - it will be familiarity and negligence instead...
classical tradition of improvization does not consider liberty as an idea at all... European liberty is tricky net of limitations.

2) novelty - in jazz idea of novely has always been on top and always concious - to bring some new idea was something expected. I speak of it neamely as part of creative mentality.. we can see it even in a way jazz players of old days speak about playing, gigs they had how often they emphisized novelty in someone's playing...
It classical music it has never been so important.

3) practice - jazz origined in practical art, actually you caanot do jazz if you do not play... so the idea of improvization comes out quite naturally - how else real crative power can be realized if the only real crative process here starts when you play the first note?
in classical... well to be true I think also that at least you should... but written traditon gives the possibility to avoid it...

4) reference - jazz originally needed some referential point to start from... some changes to play through.. many things changed of course but in general this is still of of the important part of jazz mentality.
In calssical improvization they had reference to the general idea of the form... only variations are the form more or less close to jazz model

5) solo nature of jazz - it came from singing from voice - it is my voice, it is I... so improvization is also practically inevitable... this also leads to domination of narrative concept... relatively simple (looking from outside at least)..
No need to say that concept of soloist is quite limited in classical tradition and even then it is seldom realized as directly as just 'singing' - because mostly it is realized by composers (not players) who take soloist as a part of their creative concept.


And all these qualities make paradoxal point: jazz is so highly practical that it cannot avoid connection with material equipment and eviroment - it is rooted in certain time and place stylistically and it is hard to take it out of it... on the other hand in its essence there is such and aspiration to liberty and to novelty that it has to easily adopt any new idea...

This makes also this discussion paradoxal too... the subject itself is ilusive because for serious analysis we need to define limits - but if we want to be true to our feeling we cannot do that... on the other hand to certain extent we can feel that jazz belongs in a great deal to the past and it provokes an attempet to analyze and specify it...


No conclusions... no statements .. open discussional topic for me... and intersting of course...

i think that you're grasping at straws.

how can you say that much without making a point, or as you say "conclusions" and "statements"? i think you should try. why not try making 1-3 concise points? it would probably help.

if you make no points with all those words, then it's all just your observations. so, do you know jazz and jazz history, or are you simply learning it out loud while trying to sort it out against your pre-existing knowledge, values, and biases?

as an example:

1. "The essence of jazz music is the style, rhythm, and focus of the song subjects - not improvisation"
True or False?

2. "Improvisation is a central element to what defines jazz music. It is what brings the music it's very life".
True or False?

3. "Ninety percent of jazz music played and recorded since its inception, does not include improvisation."
True or False?

4. "The central motivation for improvisation in jazz music is......"
Fill in the blank.

5. "When hearing live jazz, audiences applaud after each solo because......"
Fill in the blank.

[Pat Clare]

Improvisation allows you to have your own voice.

[Jonah]

i think that you're grasping at straws.

what else can we do in the streams of life?)))

As I said befoore I will avoid as much as possible yes/no dialectics so i will never fill in the form you offered... please, do not take it as an irrespect.. I am not making thesis and will never...

how can you say that much without making a point, or as you say "conclusions" and "statements"?

Have you seen Talmud? Long story... and not over yet...

if you make no points with all those words, then it's all just your observations

Hopefully it is!

think you should try. why not try making 1-3 concise points? it would probably help.

Maybe you're right but I would not... you may feel free to do it I guess?

so, do you know jazz and jazz history, or are you simply learning it out loud while trying to sort it out against your pre-existing knowledge, values, and biases?

How's that?

[Jonah]

For what its worth, I would like to add that it is only recently that improvisation has lost its importance in most of western music.
Throughout the history of western music, improvisation has always been a core aspect of musicianship.

I agree.. but you see.. I think when speak about jazz and western European musical tradition (call it classical - I would mean by it late midcenturies till 20th century) we use the same word 'improvization' but the contents is different... the only thing in common is alleged and relative creative spontaneouty...

In romantic period there was a form of solo music 'impromptu' - it did not mean that the piece was necessarily improvized and then notated, it meant the organization and formal relations within this music have a character that somehow associated with 'improvization'...
Or take early music preludes and toccata - we can often say that they have 'improvizational character' - yes, sometimes they were really improvized... but often they were on purpose composed in a way to have this character.. and the name was given to emphasize it...

What I want to say with these examples is that there was some understanding of 'improvizational' as character... no matter if it was actually played or composed people had the feel it of 'improvization'.
It was possible because they had good sence of regualted forms of pre-composed music... so it was relative...
it is in great deal cultural thing..

And now for me at least here is an approach to a very important issue... in jazz do we have these relations? do we have that 'understanding' that it is improvized? and where does it come from?

[pushkar000]

I agree.. but you see.. I think when speak about jazz and western European musical tradition (call it classical - I would mean by it late midcenturies till 20th century) we use the same word 'improvization' but the contents is different... the only thing in common is alleged and relative creative spontaneouty...

In romantic period there was a form of solo music 'impromptu' - it did not mean that the piece was necessarily improvized and then notated, it meant the organization and formal relations within this music have a character that somehow associated with 'improvization'...
Or take early music preludes and toccata - we can often say that they have 'improvizational character' - yes, sometimes they were really improvized... but often they were on purpose composed in a way to have this character.. and the name was given to emphasize it...

What I want to say with these examples is that there was some understanding of 'improvizational' as character... no matter if it was actually played or composed people had the feel it of 'improvization'.
It was possible because they had good sence of regualted forms of pre-composed music... so it was relative...
it is in great deal cultural thing..

And now for me at least here is an approach to a very important issue... in jazz do we have these relations? do we have that 'understanding' that it is improvized? and where does it come from?

Sure, they may not have had AABA, they may not have had choruses or trading 4's or whatever.
But there definitely in many cases was improvisation in an authentic sense - not a composed piece in an improvised manner, not a written line which may provide an improvisational character, but music as created by the performer, on the spot, mid-performance with no prior external indication by anybody, the composer included. There are many examples or indications of the high regard in which improvisation was held until recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_improvisation

I think yes, in jazz we most definitely do have these relations. To have no relations is to pick up an instrument, never ever having heard any music or played any music before, and start playing. Completely from scratch. Tabula rasa. This as we know doesn't and cannot happen. In fact, the greatest improvisers are often the greatest students of their predecessors. We study the recordings of the masters to improve...but aren't those recordings pre-composed pieces now(since they are recorded and set in stone)? Isn't our repertoire of songs basically a collection of pre-composed pieces? How do we react to the piano player playing a substitution? We hear it because we have heard it before - we have a good sense of this particular pre-composed music which is a substitution. How does the piano player even play a substitution? He or she has heard it before and knows it...
Even before recorded music, how does a student learn? From a teacher. How does the teacher teach? By providing the student with a good sense of the regulations of pre-composed music. This applies universally.
"Here, look. This is a raga. This is what happens in a raga. This is what you do in a raga."
There are regulations, and there is at least SOME amount of pre-composition. If it was totally improvised, it could never be called a raga because it would be completely new each time...

Where the understanding comes from...maybe improvisation is so fundamendal to music and so deeply connected to music within us that it was really inside all along...I cannot answer this one

[Jonah]

Maybe we mean a bit different things

I know that a person (musical or educated whatever) in the beginning of - say - 19th century could understand that
Schubert's Impomptu c-moll had a character of improvization (though i was actually composed on paper), he could identify this character even in other pieces, he could feel it.. at the same time he did not think of improvization at all listnening to Beethovens sonata (thought actually he could have improvized it)...

in classics it is quite strong - if you listen to a lot of classics involved in it - you can catch this improvizational character... composers use it conciously even when it is not improvized as process - they use it as a part of artistic language, stylistic reference...

I mean that practically process of improvization as action is left to understanding of the performer... what listner can say is he has a feel it is improvized or not...
the gounds of that feel (based on realstion between understanding of non-improvized and improvized) in classics are more or less clear.

But in jazz the only realtion that we can say for sure is the head and the solo... the head is composed, and solo is improvized... but it does not explain anything... because very rough.. it is formal but it is the only realtions I personally can see

the solo can become the head being repeatedly heard (not played! but heard!) - like CC Stardust solo...

the head can be played in a way that it is taken as close as a part of improvized solo...

there is also cultural language in jazz - fro example we more or less expect the head to be played first... if the player starts directly with solo it is also a way of artistic expresion..

I think practically - in jazz there is no such realtions between improvized and non-improvized as in classics - because actually everything is the same in that sence - from audial point, hypothetically - it is all improvized...

[Jonah]

But there definitely in many cases was improvisation in an authentic sense - not a composed piece in an improvised manner, not a written line which may provide an improvisational character, but music as created by the performer, on the spot, mid-performance with no prior external indication by anybody, the composer included. There are many examples or indications of the high regard in which improvisation was held until recently.

Of course...
I did not deny this, but they improvized the form usually.
In jazz - at least traditional the head is needed or changes.. something to play through... from outside

Those days there were contests also for improvization... but good improvizor was not necessarily good composer..
They always made difference...

[vinlander]

I see improvisation as a very important part of what makes Jazz a fascinating artistic form of music.
It is like having a conversation between people on a given topic with a lead on where it should go.
Basic structure and maybe some plan on what and when things shall be discussed but no one is coming with pre written quotes to be told verbatim in a timely fashion.
Otherwise they are all actors and rehearsing a play...
Interaction (action and reaction requiring listening) is a critical part of it, it will also be dependant of ambiance, mood of the people, state of mind and a lot other factors not directly linked to the topic itself...

[CP40Carl]

Jazz and all early music in the Americas by people of African descent had certain common features and tendencies. These didn't come to pass by performers making a creative decision to augment classical music.
Improvisation and variation was a norm of music making within many African cultures.

Interesting although European classical music certainly did play a significant part; pioneering musicians and composers like Miles Davis and Gil Evans had a keen interest in classical music for a reason. I'm not sure if it could be said that they augmented classical music but they certainly drew on its influence.

I'm not trying to say that jazz is essentially a product based solely upon earlier European classical music, just that it was influenced by it. In fact, it makes more sense to again drop the labels and simply say that the more modern improvisation based music developing in America was influenced by a wide range of earlier music from different parts of the world.

The African culture was certainly another large influence on jazz although, again, there were a lot of pioneering players and composers of non African descent. Whilst I think it is right to say that jazz developed largely in America, it's roots are widespread and drawn from many cultures; that's not only factually and historically correct but also a beautiful thing.

[Stevebol]

Check out The Music Of Black Americans: (A History) by Dr. Eileen Southern

Jazz and all early music in the Americas by people of African descent had certain common features and tendencies.
These didn't come to pass by performers making a creative decision to augment classical music.
Improvisation and variation was a norm of music making within many African cultures. Triplet feel in rhythm is more common than even 8th's and so are what we came to refer to as blue notes, call and response structures,
communal participation and the idea of a master drummer "soloist".

The musical making of African people in the Americas was continuance of their inherent cultural DNA.
The roots of jazz emerged from this wellspring.

I think that while it is possible for jazz composers to create effective through composed music,
improvisation remains at the core of the style.

I've heard jazz described as a 'different interpretation of 8th notes'. I think that's pretty accurate. A swing beat is like a heart-beat.

[mr. beaumont]

The African culture was certainly another large influence on jazz although, again, there were a lot of pioneering players and composers of non African descent. Whilst I think it is right to say that jazz developed largely in America, it's roots are widespread and drawn from many cultures; that's not only factually and historically correct but also a beautiful thing.

There's really nothing more "American" than being a mix of a bunch of different cultures, creeds. races, styles, etc.

I always like the Evans quote--jazz isn't a what, it's a how. Or something like that.

[Nabil B]

Here's why I think this is interesting to people : like many said already, improvising in a meaningful and interesting way is hard. A lot of us struggle just to get competent, and there's a lot of mystique around improvisation. Some people naturally "get it" and progress very quickly while other people (the majority as it seems) try to understand that puzzling and fascinating thing that is jazz improv, in the hopes of making progress.

Knowing that, it's only natural that many people are looking to demystify improv, making it a more accessible dream in the process. And one of the most effective ways to do so is to realize that improvisation is not all about making stuff on the spot. Yes, it's what you end up doing when you are good enough. But before getting to that level, you have to prepare yourself and learn all the material that you need to improvise with. Emily Remler said "no one improvises all the time, it's impossible". And you don't have to take her word for it, you just have to listen to the jazz greats to understand that. Once you've listened to a particular player for a long time, you start to hear them use some elements of vocabulary (or lines, or licks... call them what you want) over and over again. They improvise with it... but they don't improvise out of nothing. This is -I think- what all of these discussions on jazz improvisation are getting at. And it's an important thing to realize for all the aspiring jazz musicians.

To illustrate my point further, here's a very clear example.

Not long ago, I learned Dexter Gordon's solo on Second Balcony Jump (from the "Go" album), a Rhythm changes tune. After working on it for a while, I looked for a live version and found one on youtube. While listening to that version I was amazed by how strikingly similar it is to the album version. This is just one example that shows that jazz improvisation is not, well, 100% improvisation.

[mr. beaumont]

Well, I think some folks think "improvisation" comes from outer space or something...

What I hear here is Dexter using some "touchstone" like licks from the recording (recorded late '62, so if this is from '63 then pretty close by) and then improvising around that. It's very common to see an artist working the shape of a solo similarly for a while. I still consider this improvising.

[CP40Carl]

There's really nothing more "American" than being a mix of a bunch of different cultures, creeds. races, styles, etc.

I always like the Evans quote--jazz isn't a what, it's a how. Or something like that.

Yeah, I agree entirely Mr B, and America has produced some of the greatest music on Earth as a result (and some pretty tasty guitars as well!).

Bill Evans was my hero. Never met the guy and, from where I am, he lived on the other side of the planet. However, when I hear him play, feels like I've known him all my life. Maybe that's 'jazz'.

[CP40Carl]

Well, I think some folks think "improvisation" comes from outer space or something...

[Nabil B]

Well, I think some folks think "improvisation" comes from outer space or something...

What I hear here is Dexter using some "touchstone" like licks from the recording (recorded late '62, so if this is from '63 then pretty close by) and then improvising around that. It's very common to see an artist working the shape of a solo similarly for a while. I still consider this improvising.

Of course it is improvising. I just wanted to point out the fact that improvisation isn't just "making up stuff on the spot". It's using things you already know, sprinkled with moments of pure "magic" where you surprise yourself with new stuff.

Just my 2 cents of course, or should I say "my BS".

[goldenwave77]

Seems to me like over the past few months, we've had numerous threads in which people are looking for the exceptions in jazz history rather than the norm...so my question is, "why?" Why are some of us looking for reasons to debunk the idea that improvisation is central to jazz?

Devil's Advocate here (warning)---so I can duck for cover

If we buy this initial premise, what accounts for it? A bunch of things, e.g.

1. guitarist uneasiness/insecurity: How many guitarists can rip off a fast Clifford Brown or Bird or Johnny Griffin solo, note for note, with good time and proper musical sense?! I am frankly ambivalent about guitar as a jazz instrument...maybe like when Jimmy Raney said "Don't get me wrong...guitar is a fine instrument...but it was never about playing the guitar...I am a musician first...." (I'm using quotes, but may have the exact words misremembered, but the sense is accurate...from his Louisville master class video, on youtube) (I'm NOWHERE near the level of J. Raney, but can hear the difference between something done well, and something not...). Also, consider Scott Yanow who said in his fine book "The Great Jazz Guitarists" that "It would not be too much of an oversimplification to say that if no guitarist had ever played jazz, the history of the music would not be drastically different. That ...cannot be said about trumpet, sax...or piano..." Playing this stuff is hard enough, to do it on the fly is that much harder.
2. Maybe jazz technique/speed hit a dead end: I read the Ph.D. thesis analyzing Charlie Parker's playing done by the fellow at UCLA. If correct, he states that Bird used a LOT of similar motifs, riffs, crips, call them what you will...and this is not surprising. I mean I could hear a lot of similarity before I ever knew how to name an interval or harmonize a major scale. Anyone who listened to enough of this can hear the same thing....so even Bird did not spontaneously create...night after night...he played the hell out of rhythm changes, Cherokee changes, and maybe blues changes....I think Bird is amazing, but he is not superhuman, just like Babe Ruth was not superhuman when he hit more home runs in his early years THAN ENTIRE OTHER TEAMS...but within a decade, there were other guys doing what he did....other guys, e.g. Sonny Stitt, took Bird's style and elaborated and extended it...and frankly...some of Bird's recordings vary in quality and technically....Stitt recorded more and longer, and sometimes I think, this is what Bird would have sounded like, if he hadn't self-destructed.
3. Maybe most improvisations don't stand the test of time: Like any spontaneous art creation, what is done on the spot is harder to do than what is done with the leisure of reflection. How many people walk out of a jazz set, and can recall what was played? Transcribe the stuff from a "poetry jam" and re-read it---then look at Emily Dickinson or Shakespeare's sonnets, etc., etc. In contrast, Bird's best "noodlings" became heads themselves, and continue to amaze.
4. More re: technique and dead end: What if the demands of playing fast/fluently require us to "pre-assemble" riffs and crips, and then (re)play them....is this convincing...it can be...Bird sounds convincing...but oftentimes the effort falls short. How many have the courage to play slowly? To me, Lester Young is far more adventurous than Art Pepper...less predictable...Jim Hall also has this quality, and maybe Chet Baker (as long as he is not singing, which I find painful to listen to, at times).
5. Has "school jazz" helped/hurt the jazz scene? Big topic, not to be answered here....but IMO, the whole scene is unsustainable.....one generation of music school graduates with $100,000 debt loads and no prospect of ever paying it back will burst this bubble...Hal Galper thinks 1/100 Berkelee students go on to economically rewarding careers...he totes up the cost, and says it is a waste of money. (Interestingly, he says that Berkelee when he went there in the 1950's/early 60's was about as productive...in terms of musician "yield")
6. Most people don't like/understand/appreciate theoretically-based improvised music: Compare jazz to bluegrass or blues...the latter are simpler, and derives from a participant, unwritten folk tradition...whereas "modern" jazz is pretty far away from a folk tradition, today...just look at questions from forum participants who MUST relate everything to some theoretical construct....sometimes I think if everyone starting out was just given the Aebersold "major scale" playalong, and told...play your instrument...and listen to every one of the 12 chromatic tones against this type of chord...it would just make life so much easier...instead we have a multiplicity of "tools" and "approaches"---it likes telling people, let's talk about how to build a house using a chisel....it can be done but not easily or well...next week we'll talk about using a multi-purpose tool....the focus on the TOOLS instead of the goal, is back-ass-ward, IMO. I actually believe the highest form of improvisation makes active use of melody lines, and reworks them to produce new something new and fresh, and worthwhile, and something audiences can relate to...instead of, to take an extreme, a guy ripping off all his 1-6-2-5's stuff in, let's see, what key is this song in...B flat...piece of cake....Eb--getting tougher....Gb--tougher still...or even worse...some through-composed piece using far out harmonies

because when this happens....jazz is in danger of becoming a musician-only/participant-only form of music. Now don't get me wrong...I still think it is the most fun type of music to PLAY....or try to play (in my case), but sometimes I wonder if its practitioners will be reduced to meeting in future grottoes in underground secret societies...

Time to go now....have to go move my (father's) Oldsmobile....before it gets ticketed.

[mr. beaumont]

Of course it is improvising. I just wanted to point out the fact that improvisation isn't just "making up stuff on the spot". It's using things you already know, sprinkled with moments of pure "magic" where you surprise yourself with new stuff.

Just my 2 cents of course, or should I say "my BS".

We are definitely in agreement.