Why deny the role of improvisation in jazz?

[henryrobinett]

There may be a misunderstanding or an incomplete understanding of what improv is. You don't generally speaking, make up scales and make up chords and come out as if nothing has ever been done before. You play what you know. You may play a bunch of licks reorganized in logical and breathtakingly fresh ways, or stale ways. You might have a collection of practiced motivs, or your tools set just consists of scales and chords and wing it. Parker was a genius however he organized it. He played many patterns. He played them in such a way as you began to recognize them without knowing you were recognizing them. This takes nothing away from his genius.

[pamosmusic]

Hm. Well I believe that pandering to what a public wants or doesn't want might lessen the integrity of the art. Jazz is not a popular music. It's not pop music. It's esoteric as much as many of us inveigh against that and struggle with that. We could go the Broadcast Architecture, smooth jazz formula route and eliminate solos altogether and make it all sound like dentist music. But that's not jazz, perhaps to its detriment. But I prefer it that way. Call me stupid.

That's a little bit of a mischaracterization of what I said. It sort of illustrates a pet peeve I have with musicians too ... You don't have to "pander" to the listener just to be conscious of the fact that you're communicating. More acknowledge that someone is listening. If they get up in the middle, flip you the bird, and leave then maybe think about that. They could be an idiot and not worth your time or they could have a worthwhile piece of advice. I actually literally just wrote something about this the other day. It's on the "musings" link in my signature if anyone is interested - it's the most recent post and it's technically about Kendrick Lamar but still ....

to me ... Completely ignoring the concerns of the listener is akin to speaking Chinese in a room full of English speakers and not stopping to consider their concerns when they bring them to your attention. You're more than welcome to stop and say "well ... I speak Chinese and I really think that my meaning is going to be lost in translation of I force this in English" ... That's fine but just ignoring the audiences thoughts entirely is a weird to me

[goldenwave77]

There may be a misunderstanding or an incomplete understanding of what improv is. You don't generally speaking, make up scales and make up chords and come out as if nothing has ever been done before. You play what you know. You may play a bunch of licks reorganized in logical and breathtakingly fresh ways, or stale ways. You might have a collection of practiced motivs, or your tools set just consists of scales and chords and wing it. Parker was a genius however he organized it. He played many patterns. He played them in such a way as you began to recognize them without knowing you were recognizing them. This takes nothing away from his genius.

No, I do play well enough to get that. Granted, everyone has the same 12 tones to play with, and the same (usually) six strings.

What I'm saying is....there is a difference between riff-based playing...and more "thoughtful" improvisation. (I'm stating this starkly, to make a point.)

To me, Lester Young sounds a lot less predictable than Illinois Jacquet, or Art Pepper. (I had an album of Art Pepper's which included a lot of alternate takes....it was amazing how similar the different versions sounded....something I think that would have been less true with Lester Young, or Stan Getz, or Jim Hall, or Paul Desmond, or Sonny Rollins.)

We've all had the same experience, I think, of hearing a group play and one set sounds better, more adventurous....taking more chances...of maybe playing without a "safety net" so to speak...and usually this happens later at night, and often, at the last set, after some of the crowd has left....and I've always HEARD that the best playing (and maybe sometimes, the worst) will take place after hours...after everyone has gone, or in another place...at least in the mythology of how jazz used to be played in smoky clubs. I saw Von Freeman play with his son Chico back in NYC in the 80's...the waitress spilled an entire pitcher of beer on me...let me stay for the 2nd set...and then for the 3rd set, after the crowd thinned on a week night---the playing got better and better, and more adventurous...maybe it was all still riff-based, but it sure didn't sound like it...though back then I was just an avid listener, but not a would-be player, so maybe I'm wrong.

Re: Charlie Parker, I think most people consider him the all time greatest jazz musician ever...NUMERO UNO. My point is that EVEN he, fell back onto patterns and stuff which he would recycle...but he did so, in a way, that it was not obvious....I guess we call this fluency...or maybe real mastery--making something look easy...when it really isn't. (I really like Howard Roberts' playing...but at first hearing, some people liken it to elevator music...he does it so well, that it appears effortless...same thing with an Ellington 3-minute arrangement---more stuff going on there than in most entire albums from other musicians.)

I don't mean to start an argument--I know we both agree guitar is a HARD instrument for jazz. And BTW, that fellow, Mr. Mingus was an amazing bassist, and composer. (People talk about Jaco P. liberating bass...but it seems obvious to me that Jaco must have listened a lot to Charles Mingus, to get that sense of adventure....and taking chances in his playing.)

[henryrobinett]

That's a little bit of a mischaracterization of what I said. It sort of illustrates a pet peeve I have with musicians too ... You don't have to "pander" to the listener just to be conscious of the fact that you're communicating. More acknowledge that someone is listening. If they get up in the middle, flip you the bird, and leave then maybe think about that. They could be an idiot and not worth your time or they could have a worthwhile piece of advice. I actually literally just wrote something about this the other day. It's on the "musings" link in my signature if anyone is interested - it's the most recent post and it's technically about Kendrick Lamar but still ....

to me ... Completely ignoring the concerns of the listener is akin to speaking Chinese in a room full of English speakers and not stopping to consider their concerns when they bring them to your attention. You're more than welcome to stop and say "well ... I speak Chinese and I really think that my meaning is going to be lost in translation of I force this in English" ... That's fine but just ignoring the audiences thoughts entirely is a weird to me

OK, well that in turn is a mischaracterization of what I was saying. LOL. I agree with you. It drives me crazy when musicians exist on stage in their own little world oblivious to the fact that an audience is even there, unless that's part of their art - ie early Miles or Jarrett.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about writing music, performing or making recordings based on your interpretation of what you believe "the people" want to hear. I think if the person is an artist or aspires to be one he or she needs to develop their vision and message and seek to create that as honestly as possible. And be responsible for that vision regardless of public criticism.

[Stevebol]

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?

Why? Because they're a-holes. Sorry to be so blunt but that's the way I see it.

[CP40Carl]

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".

I agree that improvisation is using things you already know. This knowledge is built on theory, experience, musical talent and flare and, in some instances, drawing and developing from previously learnt licks.

In relation to the latter, there have been previous threads on this forum which distinguished between players who play and adapt set licks and those who don't. I am one of the latter and never learnt set licks, instead inventing rhythms and note patterns as I play. I'm not saying that I always do a good job of it however! This was just the way I was taught when I had lessons. In essence, once you know where the honey notes are and are mindful of the melody, you just use your imagination and take things from there. I always thought of the lick players being more associated with bebop jazz. I play more modal jazz and I don't think that set licks work as well in that style.

I think players like Frisell and Garberek don't tend to rely too heavily on set licks, although there will enevitably be times when a similar lick or sequence might be played by them.

Anyway, I don't want to drag this thread in a different direction but thought it would be relevant to highlight the different improvisational styles used within the jazz community and degrees of improvisation applied.

Great posts everyone, some very interesting and valid views (even though mine might not be one of them!).

[ecj]

I think the whole guitar culture of "modes" and "scale fingerings" has created a really unique problem for people playing jazz on the instrument. I'm not sure I can articulate yet exactly what I mean, but my impression of other instruments' pedagogy from growing up with a sax-player brother and friends who played other instruments is that most everyone else is learning musical phrases. Guitar players tend to learn abstract systems for the instrument.

"Improvisation" can mean many different things. It should mean applying skills that you've practiced in the woodshed onto changes when you're out on stage. For guitar players it seems to often mean stabbing around in "pitch collections" over chords with very little sense of direction.

99.999999% of the time you're not going to play something really cool and good if you haven't practiced that skill a million times. You can work in your improv on the contour of your solo, or interaction with other players, etc., but you also have to have learned a lot of licks and phrases.

I used to be one of those guitar players that did not do that. Once I got some technique issues under control and started trying to learn how to play jazz like other instruments do it, my playing improved tremendously.

I think that's what people are reacting against. The idea that "improvisation" has to be pure invention. It almost never has been, and especially not in the classic jazz scene of the 40s-50s.

[pingu]

I think the whole guitar culture of "modes" and "scale fingerings" has created a really unique problem for people playing jazz on the instrument. I'm not sure I can articulate yet exactly what I mean, but my impression of other instruments' pedagogy from growing up with a sax-player brother and friends who played other instruments is that most everyone else is learning musical phrases. Guitar players tend to learn abstract systems for the instrument.

"Improvisation" can mean many different things. It should mean applying skills that you've practiced in the woodshed onto changes when you're out on stage. For guitar players it seems to often mean stabbing around in "pitch collections" over chords with very little sense of direction.

99.999999% of the time you're not going to play something really cool and good if you haven't practiced that skill a million times. You can work in your improv on the contour of your solo, or interaction with other players, etc., but you also have to have learned a lot of licks and phrases.

I used to be one of those guitar players that did not do that. Once I got some technique issues under control and started trying to learn how to play jazz like other instruments do it, my playing improved tremendously.

I think that's what people are reacting against. The idea that "improvisation" has to be pure invention. It almost never has been, and especially not in the classic jazz scene of the 40s-50s.

good post .....
trouble with guitar (also a fab thing eventually once you get there) is that theres
miriad ways and fb locations to play any given phraze

so guitarists have to get to the point where
they can play what they want wherever they
are on the neck
hence all the leg work doing the caged shapes arps all over the place
x 12 keys of course !
holy shit I don't know why we bother really
all that and we'll never play as fast and clean
as oscar peterson
joke ...

[Stevebol]

Who is that french pianist, classically trained who did jazz type trio music? It was all written and bored me to tears. I live for that spark of instantaneous creativity. I live for it either as a player or a listener. It's the moment of creation. That spark has no permanence. No thought. It just is. The fire. The moment. The danger. The exhilaration. The flash of brilliance and the many misses. Man, that's the shit for me. It doesn't have to be perfect. As a matter of fact if it's too perfect, chances are it's not improvised. It's gotta be on the edge. Gotta have chances taken. Have to have the boardwalk, chess board, framework, roadway. Got to have the love affair, the drunken brawls, the betrayals, the assignations, and the hidden knives. You NEVER KNOW what's going to be on the menu. That's why I love it. It's not the perfection. It's the mess. It's the closest art and music I know that most closely resembles real life as it happens. Because it is real life as it happens, enclosed and encapsulated in sound, pitch, time, rhythm and the indomitable human spirit. . .

I'm from the classical school. It's not what most people think. I can't play classical music at all but I was surrounded by it growing up. At 14 I asked for a guitar and never looked back. Even today I can barely read music. I've had less than 10 guitar lessons after playing 40+ years.
In your mid-teens you're still young enough to grow into whatever it is you're going to do. I'm not a jazz musician and never wanted to be. I like the music because I like ALL music. People used to hire me to wing it so I did. The only thing I miss is R&B. It was wide open in the 80's and I got to do whatever I wanted to. I got a chance to do everything- sing, dance, wank out solos(too many), arrange vocal harmonies.
Doing 4-part harmonies in clubs was quite a thrill. People were like WTF your vocals are awesome.
It's all about slamming beats now.
Being a performer exclusively kind of sucks. So few ever make it. I'm a techno-phobe and have other issues. I couldn't cut it in the long-term.
What's wrong with the classical first thing? It worked for Herbie Hancock, my guitar teacher, Al Tinney. lot's of people. After classical you're on your own. You have to figure out music and life without much help if any.
There are many different paths that lead to success or failure.

[Jonah]

I'm from the classical school. It's not what most people think. I can't play classical music at all but I was surrounded by it growing up. At 14 I asked for a guitar and never looked back. Even today I can barely read music.

May I ask what did you do in the classical school?

[grahambop]

I think the whole guitar culture of "modes" and "scale fingerings" has created a really unique problem for people playing jazz on the instrument. I'm not sure I can articulate yet exactly what I mean, but my impression of other instruments' pedagogy from growing up with a sax-player brother and friends who played other instruments is that most everyone else is learning musical phrases. Guitar players tend to learn abstract systems for the instrument.

"Improvisation" can mean many different things. It should mean applying skills that you've practiced in the woodshed onto changes when you're out on stage. For guitar players it seems to often mean stabbing around in "pitch collections" over chords with very little sense of direction.

Absolutely. When I got into jazz, I just started learning phrases by Wes, Bird, Dexter, and whoever else took my fancy. I didn't learn a million scales. It just seemed obvious to me this was the way to go.

After all, before that, when I got into rock guitar, I just started learning solos by Hendrix, Jimmy Page, etc. Why approach jazz any differently?

I'm not minimising the importance of theory, of course eventually I came up against the need to understand more about chord progressions, chord tones, etc. But building a language of musical phrases came first. And it was a lot more fun that way.

[Jonah]

I think part of the problem that often discusiion about improvization is speculating over the question 'does he really improvize?' - and that 'really' is what makes it illusive and misleading...

My opinion that music is a cultural thing.. and as a cultural thing it is first of all what we hear - in broad sence I mean... (but not what we play)... we are listeners and players are first of all listners (to the other music, to the world, to their soul...)

So my idea we shoudl perception first of all... I listen to that certain track and I feel like
- it's improvized
- it's composed
- it's composed to sound like improvized

(in real life it may be more complex - but the real importance is what I hear... not the intention of the player, not whta he says in teh interview... not what the critics says - I can consider it all unless it does not contradict my direct impression of music)

So I think it would to analyze this side of it, not that abstract 'if really improvizes'...

I begin to think where this impression that I put down before comes from... why I feel it is improvized or not etc.?

Because music is not just any music.. music is culture it belongs to it... so there is certain enviroment , certain tradition.. the fact that I feel something improvized meand for me that I and this piece of music belong to some musical culture where there is a notion of 'improvization' in contrast to notion of 'preliminary composed music' - there are some musical features that I instinctively recognize as being signs of improvization...
Of course this impression may change.. usually wit deeper experience in that certain musical tradition... I remember that pieces taht seemed to be so fresh and original for now seem to me fake stylistic imitation and even with that I am not sure that it is not giong to change in time...

I am not ready to say what exactly though I would keep the discussion because it is interesting for me...

I can only say that in classics this line is much more destinctive... and in jazz there is in general an a priori listnere's percption that 'it is all improvised'.. the only realtion that make dialectic tension is 'original tune to be recognized' and 'improvization of soloing'
for example my friend dose not know Body and Soul tune and when Coleman Hawkins starts his famous solo - for me at the beginning he makes a smooth introductory of original motives sliding smoothely in improvization - for my friend it is all improvized
i hear this relation between original and improvized -as for sure Hawk did - so mine perception is closer to this traditions.. but I could miss something too... maybe there are quote he uses or licks I do not recognize etc. so there's always a chance for new discoveries...

Another example Charlie Chrisitan Stardust solo - at least the section that he played I think three or four times on records practically note for note - I listen for the firs time it sounds improvized... then listen to it on another recore and hrea it repeated note-for-note... I cannot percieve it as improvized any more... he plays it great vivid lively but the notion (I think) of improvization excludes the idea ontegral repetion of musical - story (let's call story)... I mean a lick repeated.. a motive.. even quote... even phrase will not destroy the fell of iprovization - but the integral part that could practically a piece of music being repeated destroys this feeling..
If I recognize ithe reapt completely I just cannot help it it is more than thinking of reasoning it is direct reaction...

But at the same time this CC solo still has feature of improvized music -but now it goes to the cathegory ' composed to sound like improvized'...

Please, do not be misled by these 'cathegories' or maybe a bit rough generaliztion in my posts.. I undestand it as just conventional to make my idea more clear...
I think it is very inbteresting discussion really..

[Jonah]

Absolutely. When I got into jazz, I just started learning phrases by Wes, Bird, Dexter, and whoever else took my fancy. I didn't learn a million scales. It just seemed obvious to me this was the way to go.

After all, before that, when I got into rock guitar, I just started learning solos by Hendrix, Jimmy Page, etc. Why approach jazz any differently?

I'm not minimising the importance of theory, of course eventually I came up against the need to understand more about chord progressions, chord tones, etc. But building a language of musical phrases came first. And it was a lot more fun that way.

I guess on the contrary -... knowing musical theory is not learning million of scales... it is learning to undertand music...

Licks and phrases can be also a way to understand music - maybe to more limited tradition and longer - but quite enough

patterns and scales are just practical technical tool - they shoudl be applied to something - to phrase of harmony knowledge...
problem comes they substitute real theory... I know where it come from - this perforated card of patterns can make even robot to play soemthing coheren without understanding of how it works...

[Stevebol]

May I ask what did you do in the classical school?

I meant to say 'classical first' not classical school. In jazz there used to be a classical first thing. It's not used anymore. I was surrounded by it. I like classical music. Always have I just didn't want to play it or play anything. I was at a cello lesson one day and the teacher's son showed me a guitar. I held it and plucked a few notes, went home and said I want a guitar. My parents bought me one and that was that. I've been improvising my way through life ever since.
To answer your question. I didn't do anything.
I can't play classical music or jazz. I wing it on guitar and everything else in life.

[CP40Carl]

Fascinating discussion. I'm always interested to hear other players' approaches to learning jazz, particularly those who say that learning licks helped them to understand the music. I think that is a great approach and transcribing has always been an important way to really understand how the great players thought about and approached jazz.

However, I have always been concerned by players who simply stockpile a mass of copied licks and simply reassemble them in a seemingly random way over standards. This, to my mind, is placing too much reliance on memorised licks and would be unlikely to result in a properly structured improvised performance; you may as well feed the licks into a machine and have it randomly string them together over the head.

Licks are fine as a learning tool although I would advocate that students spend as much time simply listening to jazz, understanding voice leading (and honey notes) and ear training. Once a sufficient amount of knowledge and exposure to these areas has been gained, students should then pay great attention to the melody of the particular standard upon which they wish to improvise. There should then be no requirement to then rely upon stock licks.

If, on the other hand, students simply wish to emulate past masters, be it Joe Pass, Jim Hall or Jimi Hendrix, then they can confine a greater portion of their studies to learning licks.

Each to their own I say but the purpose of my post has been to warn again the over reliance by some on pre learned licks. I've been playing many years and gigged at clubs, pubs, theatres, radio, etc. I don't rely on a single pre learnt lick. That would be far too difficult!

[pkirk]

However, I have always been concerned by players who simply stockpile a mass of copied licks and simply reassemble them in a seemingly random way over standards. This, to my mind, is placing too much reliance on memorised licks and would be unlikely to result in a properly structured improvised performance; you may as well feed the licks into a machine and have it randomly string them together over the head.

Licks are fine as a learning tool although I would advocate that students spend as much time simply listening to jazz, understanding voice leading (and honey notes) and ear training. Once a sufficient amount of knowledge and exposure to these areas has been gained, students should then pay great attention to the melody of the particular standard upon which they wish to improvise. There should then be no requirement to then rely upon stock licks.

I'm feeling ornery, so let me take on your premise, in fact by making two contradictory points ;-)

A. First there is something magical about improving as an improvisor, in that as you advance, even if you do it just by learning licks, as you get control over the material you draw from it begins to emerge in your playing in an idiosyncratic way, even the licks you ripped off eventually start to come out into your own voice. It just works that way for everyone who works at it. So in fact I've never heard any half decent jazz player sound like a machine regurgitating licks at random, even when I can tell where their licks come from. So I think you are building a straw man here. The value of licks has more to do with the language of jazz as it comes down from its history. What I have found is that forcing licks that one doesn't yet have fully internalized tends to sound bad, but that's not because it's random, but rather because it's not controlled

B. the Flip side is this. *Every* decent improvisor at some level is just regurgitating licks at random. As guitarists this is easy to hear whether you listen to Wes, Martino, Django, Pass, Goodrick, Holdsworth, Metheny, etc. Lot of the licks are theirs, but they use them over and over. If you listen to any of the alpha dogs on this forum who post their stuff, you'll notice it even more because their bag of licks is more limited than the greats.

In my view, beauty and depth in jazz improvisation comes not from the licks, but from from larger-scale structure and commitment to the other important parts of jazz: group interaction, use of dynamics and other devices, etc.

[Vladan]

Yes, bag of licks. It took me 20+ years to get sick of the only one I knew. Now it takes about a song length.
BTW, I still use that one, only now I know some 2, or 3 more, maybe 4.

The problem some people have with Jazz improvisation is that it is not improvisation in it's purest. When you take a look at it, everything is known in advance, the start, the goal, all the obstacles along the way and all the solutions to overcome those, all the stones and trees on and by the road. The only unknown thing is which way you'll take and what road. Since all the players are heading towards the same goal, but using different roads, or travelling same roads in different ways, they should take care not to bump into each other when their paths crosss.
One reason younger generations are turning from changes to modal vamps, they feel there's more freedom because they have enough time to develop ideas and there's no set goal. Also it's much easier, with lots of time and no goal to miss. With changes, to them, it's like one short modal vamp after another, with obligation to hit the overlaping note. Too much effort. Of course, product is rather crappy one. Changes are much much better, IMO.

Anyway, I don't care if something's improvised, or not, if it sounds good. All the same if it does not. One should not improvise if can't make it sound good. Much better to figure it out and play from memory.
Even more because, IMO, figuring something out and playing from memory generally lead to producing better music, if not better Jazz. It is something you figured out, something you have to stand for, or abandon as bad, but there is a decisssion to be made, with all the time on your hand, so no excuses. It is not a bunch of chord notes with embelishments from muscle memory that popped into your mind on the spot only to be forgotten by the next bar of music, and if there was a bad one, or a couple, who cares, nobody heard it anyway and there surely is some name for it and theory behind to explain.
It is something you are so sure abot that if you play it all over again no audience will ever get tired of it. You and bandmates are on the same path, paving it all together. You are not a bunch of scholars, or wedding band musicians, never to meet each other except for the gig while pretending to be really serious about "your" music.

Could that be THE problem? Better Jazz, better improvisation, is not always better music?

Actually, NOT a problem!

If you love Jazz you should love it for what it is. Why would anybody care what I, or some other outsider think it should be? Really.
I'll keep enjoying the sound of well played, well structured songs with odd harmonies and freedom for players, something I recogniyze as Jazz when I heaar it, while other and real Jazz lovers and musicians will continue enjoying improvisation, or whatever they think is the thing.

We are all good as long as we love it, for whatever the reason.

[fumblefingers]

Guys:

The acid test for the definition of improvisation===>> "Playing a solo differently every single time"


That's enough to call it improv or "real improv" or whatever you like.



Disagreements?

[Jonah]

Guys:

The acid test for the definition of improvisation===>> "Playing a solo differently every single time"


That's enough to call it improv or "real improv" or whatever you like.



Disagreements?

First I would change 'playing' for 'hearing'...

And... complete reapeat of integral part of the solo surely makes it out of improvizational..

There's still something else than just difference...

IEven CC Stardust solo when known it is repeated has featerues of improvization..

It is often said and truly that Parker's heads sound like improvizations... why is that?

There's something in a way of thinking, in organization of material that is related to idea in improvization in this tradition to an extent that even when we know it is composed and learnt we still feel improvizational character in it.

[fumblefingers]

Gibberish

[Pocket Player]

i Just walked into my 18 year old son's room and asked him what Jazz was. He's never listen to a jazz record in his life... and listens to the worst techno crap you've ever heard. I think he gave a better answer, then most people's attempts to describe Jazz.

Whats jazz?"it's the groovy shit"

[Jonah]

Gibberish

Fine. Next time you ask 'disagreements?' I will know it is rhetorical question.

[CP40Carl]

I'm feeling ornery, so let me take on your premise, in fact by making two contradictory points ;-)

A. First there is something magical about improving as an improvisor, in that as you advance, even if you do it just by learning licks, as you get control over the material you draw from it begins to emerge in your playing in an idiosyncratic way, even the licks you ripped off eventually start to come out into your own voice. It just works that way for everyone who works at it. So in fact I've never heard any half decent jazz player sound like a machine regurgitating licks at random, even when I can tell where their licks come from. So I think you are building a straw man here. The value of licks has more to do with the language of jazz as it comes down from its history. What I have found is that forcing licks that one doesn't yet have fully internalized tends to sound bad, but that's not because it's random, but rather because it's not controlled

B. the Flip side is this. *Every* decent improvisor at some level is just regurgitating licks at random. As guitarists this is easy to hear whether you listen to Wes, Martino, Django, Pass, Goodrick, Holdsworth, Metheny, etc. Lot of the licks are theirs, but they use them over and over. If you listen to any of the alpha dogs on this forum who post their stuff, you'll notice it even more because their bag of licks is more limited than the greats.

In my view, beauty and depth in jazz improvisation comes not from the licks, but from from larger-scale structure and commitment to the other important parts of jazz: group interaction, use of dynamics and other devices, etc.

I understand what you are saying here. I guess, in a way, I have just developed my own licks (maybe that's were I've gone wrong!). Actually, I think we are broadly in agreement in that licks have their place although it is the development of the lick and the musical application and context which is important.

[fumblefingers]

Fine. Next time you ask 'disagreements?' I will know it is rhetorical question.

Sorry

[Stevebol]

I don't understand why jazz musicians would be concerned with this. If there's some conspiracy to rid jazz of improvisation then so what. Improvise on something else. Improvise with life or some other music. 'Jazz' is just a label.