Thinking while playing

[3625]

Rollins from the 2:00 mark says when he first starts playing it's what he knows - playing cliches - then from there moves deeper into a state of not thinking where the music emanates from within - his subconscious.

[mr. beaumont]

But thats still thinking. There is a place that you can get to, and I am sure you are aware of it, where there really is NO thinking. You are clearly hearing music in your head, and you are just flowing. Its a very rare place to be, but I think everyone has experienced it at one point or another, regardless of your musical level. You dont have to think where you are going next, you hear it in your head real time, and it just keeps coming. What you are playing over is kind of in the back of your head, and you just hear things that feel good to you inside. Its rare, but thats where I think guys like Benson, Wes and Pat Martino get to most of the time. (As well as most of the greats) Out of everything I have ever recoreded, I have ONE clip where I am in that zone. I came home, plugged in ice cold, hit the video recorder, and played. There is a bit of sloppiness here and there because I was not even warmed up at all, but that makes no difference. I was hearing it all before it happened, totally clear in my head. Just a simple more rock like blues, but it felt SO fantastic. When it was over, I was like "what just happened"?? I think most of us get that a little bit here and there, but the greats can bring it on much of the time. Lots and lots of practice, and a little bit of luck mixed in.

i dig what you're saying. What i'm saying is--that's not the be all end all. There's a step where you can control that phenomenon you experienced.

i like mihaly czikszentmihaly's writings on "flow." At it's highest level, yes, the subconscious takes over, but--the artist is in complete control of it too.

[destinytot]

Four Cs as preliminaries:
Comfort zone: awareness of the boundaries and limits of my knowledge and ability. (The choice of whether to attempt to go beyond them is another matter.)
Control: of concepts and self
Competence: dexterity
Confidence: attitude

[targuit]

I love what that genius, Sonny Rollins, says about getting into the subconscious flow and getting out of the way of the music.

The subconscious can tell a story, organizing elements that may seem incongruous in a dream state. The flow is a kind of dream state, where you are experiencing the dream like watching a movie, yet you are experiencing this dream as it is happening to you. You are simultaneously an observer and an actor. You are watching the musical story unfold in time like a dream, yet you are the vessel - you are taking (subconscious) actions to play that musical story as it unfolds. But the subconscious mind is the Director of the movie - organizing the elements - melody, harmonies, the shape of your phrase and musical line.

In my opinion this is the case because there is no time to think analytically and 'consciously' about where that line will go. The destination of the music, like a dream, may have a theme and a direction, an emotional story line reflecting musical tension and release. But it must flow like a river - the music must relate to the beat, the groove, the tone feelings evoked. That is when you get to the point where the musical voice you hear surprises you as the listener, even as you are that singing voice. It is almost like being in a trance of sorts that you don't want to break. To tell that story, your conscious mind has to step aside out of the way.

I also like his point about starting with the 'cliches', which might in many cases being stating the melody. But you start weaving the tapestry, and then you have to allow your subconscious to take the wheel and determine where the dream will take you.

Beyond all this Zen of Improvisation there are also the recent neurological studies via sophisticated MRI scans utilizing methods to determine which areas of the brain are glowing when a musician is improvising. These are the same cortical and other brain areas and nuclei associated with dreaming and narrating a story about oneself. These studies are described in some recent books by neurologist/musicians. I have forgotten whether is was Oliver Sacks or some else, whose name escapes me at the moment, but I recall reading this material online as well.

[joe2758]

Attachment 20493

Awesome post. This flow chart particularly. I'm going to try making a list of things I'm working on and categorize them under one of these to track progress. Thanks

[henryrobinett]

I'd like to say this about all this talk about not thinking. It pretty much occurs AFTER you have digested all of the information. It's like walking. You don't THINK about walking. You walk. It's not that you're blind while walking. You walk. If you tried to not think before you KNEW walking you'd fall or be unstable or walk into walls.

So I think all of this attempting to not think before you're there doesn't make sense.

[Jonah]

Actually even question 'should I think or not?' confuses me a bit (smetime happens to hear thta) -- as if you can choose

[sgcim]

Let's face it, some "think" more than others. Listen, and look at Monk for example - the way his fingers hover over the keys like he hasn't decided which notes to hit until the final microsecond. Sometimes he's a little late because he's always second guessing, he can't make up his mind in time! That's showing you thought in action. You can hear it. I think I hear that conscious "wringing out the notes" in Miles also. Maybe Jimmy Raney is one of the few guitarists that, to me, sounds like he "considers" many of his lines.

Of course all the free blowers will have you believe they're considering everything.....

Actually, when I saw Jimmy Raney live, he didn't seem to be "considering" any of his lines; he was like a force of nature, burning like a mother.
In an interview, he said something similar to what I posted that Getz said about improvising; trying to get into the alpha state.
Raney said that reaching that state was what he aimed for, but if he failed to reach it, he had enough musical knowledge to fall back on.
Raney spent many years playing with Getz, so it's not surprising that they both came from the same place.
Phil Woods, another sax player Raney recorded with, also seems to come from that same place.

[henryrobinett]

Further thoughts about my not thinking/walking analogy. Once you know how to walk, not only do you not think while walking, but it's hard to THINK about walking and walk effortlessly. If you suddenly TRIED to force yourself to think about walking you'd probably make all kinds of mistakes. "Ok, I'm going to start with my, let's see, left foot. Then I'm going to exert just enough effort into my right, lift it just so and move it so this far . . . Ok too far." Bang!

If you tried to think about eating you'd have a tough time, probably. Eating is such a natural thing, for most of us. I mean look, drunks have a hard time peeing and walking, -- forget running. And sometimes they appear to be really concentrating. They're thinking very hard to do things that they just do when they're not drunk.

It's exactly the same thing with jazz, or music or ANYTHING. It's EXACTLY the same thing. But you have to have gone through all the steps first. You have to KNOW it, and there aren't any short cuts. You can't be Lebron and play basketball without thinking without being Lebron already. You can't speak German without thinking in the language without FIRST KNOWING the language remarkably well. And it'd be kind of dumb to try and do so. What's more it wouldn't make much sense to tell your language students to just "NOT THINK." It doesn't make a lot of sense.

So the answer to getting there is to just practice and practice and practice some more. And play, and play, play, practice.

[AlsoRan]

Further thoughts about my not thinking/walking analogy. Once you know how to walk, not only do you not think while walking, but it's hard to THINK about walking and walk effortlessly. If you suddenly TRIED to force yourself to think about walking you'd probably make all kinds of mistakes. "Ok, I'm going to start with my, let's see, left foot. Then I'm going to exert just enough effort into my right, lift it just so and move it so this far . . . Ok too far." Bang!

If you tried to think about eating you'd have a tough time, probably. Eating is such a natural thing, for most of us. I mean look, drunks have a hard time peeing and walking, -- forget running. And sometimes they appear to be really concentrating. They're thinking very hard to do things that they just do when they're not drunk.

It's exactly the same thing with jazz, or music or ANYTHING. It's EXACTLY the same thing. But you have to have gone through all the steps first. You have to KNOW it, and there aren't any short cuts. You can't be Lebron and play basketball without thinking without being Lebron already. You can't speak German without thinking in the language without FIRST KNOWING the language remarkably well. And it'd be kind of dumb to try and do so. What's more it wouldn't make much sense to tell your language students to just "NOT THINK." It doesn't make a lot of sense.

So the answer to getting there is to just practice and practice and practice some more. And play, and play, play, practice.

Funny that you mention these examples.

As I age, especially when I am tired, I find myself having to think about things more. A password that I regularly use becomes something that I have to think through. At the gas pump, I suddenly put in the wrong ATM card password and have to rethink the numbers again, or even have some sort of acronym to help recall it. (I know, it is kind of a grim situation)

Is this the kind of unconscious activity that you are talking about? Actions that you just execute because you have done it so many times, and you get the outcome that you want? It is like just wanting to do something and than your fingers carry the pattern out automatically, you might just have to look at the guitar to make sure you are in the correct position.

[princeplanet]

Actually, when I saw Jimmy Raney live, he didn't seem to be "considering" any of his lines; he was like a force of nature, burning like a mother.
In an interview, he said something similar to what I posted that Getz said about improvising; trying to get into the alpha state.
Raney said that reaching that state was what he aimed for, but if he failed to reach it, he had enough musical knowledge to fall back on.
Raney spent many years playing with Getz, so it's not surprising that they both came from the same place.
Phil Woods, another sax player Raney recorded with, also seems to come from that same place.

That's the 2nd time on this forum someone has said something like that about Raney (so it must be true! ) Was trying to think of a guitarist who really considers about what he's about to play, how about Hall, or Sco??

[Tag101]

i dig what you're saying. What i'm saying is--that's not the be all end all. There's a step where you can control that phenomenon you experienced.

i like mihaly czikszentmihaly's writings on "flow." At it's highest level, yes, the subconscious takes over, but--the artist is in complete control of it too.

That is interesting, but I am not sure how its possible! I think it feels so good because the ideas are coming with zero effort. Its like they are popping into your head from who knows where. All you are at the time is a medium, between this effortless flow of ideas, and the noise coming out of the guitar. I have played better while "thinking", but I have never experienced that feeling for an entire 2-3 minutes other than that one time. And listening back, I would not change a note of what I played. I loved it, and its rare when I can listen to myself at all without feeling sick. I think everyone would agree that scatting is as instantaneous as music can be. When Benson scats, thats an instant flow of ideas, and I think it shows even his limitations on guitar, as he scats even better than he plays guitar! As much as I love his guitar playing (yes, hes my favorite), I would rather hear him just scat! The flow of ideas is beyond belief, and you can see what kind of vocabulary, or, sheer imagination the man has!!

By the way Mr B., great thread!!!

[mr. beaumont]

Thanks!

I guess I think it's possible because I can get there while painting. So I feel there has to be a jazz guitar playing equivalent.

And I think I've seen cats who can do it. Our own Reg, for example. That guy can read down a chart and make you think he's known the tune for 20 years.

[Jonah]

Was trying to think of a guitarist who really considers about what he's about to play, how about Hall

with Hall it is definitely part of his aesthetics... one can hear that he thinks

The same thing with Raney... with feel of virtuoso spnataneouty

This an artistic quality of their personal language

IMHO these are much more importantn and interesting to discuss than intention of thinking etc. We deal with music which is art... so everything involved becomes a part of an artistic world.. if not then we can just ignore it..

i don't care player says or what his intention was.. what matters is what I hear from his playing

I tried to say the same thing about improvization, it's important what we hear as listners not the intention of player, if we hear as improvized (not that we were told it was improvized) - at least for perception...

At any point music is first of all is what we hear - not what we play

y the way in one of the interviews Peter Bernstein was asked what he thought about spaces and pauses.. and first he said regular cliche answer about 'that silence is part of music' or ' say a lot with minimum notes' etc.

but then he added with much more excitement he said something like 'it's time when you can think what your next step is'

But at the same time I would not say that 'thinking' is really part of his aesthetics... his choises are deeply emotional

Probably that's what I want to say... How you make your choices (emotionally, rationally, conciously or not - whatever) this could be the topic... but you should make your choices anyway... because if you don't then say bye to music

But it seems it's not the same that this thread speaks about...

[Jehu]

That's the 2nd time on this forum someone has said something like that about Raney (so it must be true! ) Was trying to think of a guitarist who really considers about what he's about to play, how about Hall, or Sco??

Watching videos of Wes, he has always struck me as someone who is focused and carefully considering the choices he's making when he plays. But maybe that's just him trying to keep the old 'guitar face' under control.

[destinytot]

We deal with music which is art... so everything involved becomes a part of an artistic world.. if not then we can just ignore it..

That's a really helpful post. Thank you, Jonah.

As a listener, I appreciate that music is art because I experience it as such. As a practitioner, although I am not trying to produce art, I've experienced occasional moments of art. The experience is bliss - wordless and without thought.

But that is my subjective state. I'm not trying to make art when I play the guitar.

I'm trying to put the notes in the right place, and I need to think in order to do so. I'd rather have reasoning behind my thinking so that I can repeat the process under different circumstances.

I also think in performance; at the moment, my awareness 'bubble' includes myself, other musicians and the audience (in that order of priority).

[Groyniad]

talking about thinking and playing music so much is really odd

you might think after a chorus - common now - don't play so much listen more - or, okay one more try but only one more chorus

but that's not very interesting to anyone is it?

the thing is clearly to be hearing things NOT thinking things. all the practice of harmony and rhythm is meant to help you hear things more effectively and efficiently in the heat of battle. just as important is obviously listening to a lot of music you love and e.g. trying to sing a long with it.

best 'practice' i ever did was have 20 plus bird tunes in the car. spent two years listening to them wherever i went. very quickly i was singing the solos as well as the heads. i've never learned so much any other way.

crucial here, for me, is how much you love the music you're listening too. if you love it so much it makes you freak out (i used to whoop and wail a lot in the car as well as singing) then you'll pick it up really quickly and internalize it, which means you'll start hearing it in the heat of battle - and eventually you'll start playing bits of it (rearranged fragments etc. etc.)

if you aren't hearing things all the time in the heat of battle then you've got serious problems.

but thinking is neither here nor there (which is not to say you don't have think a lot in practice - at least to decide what to practice)

[destinytot]

Awesome post. This flow chart particularly. I'm going to try making a list of things I'm working on and categorize them under one of these to track progress. Thanks

Thanks - if you like that idea, here's another.

[Groyniad]

thinking while you're improvising would be like humming a tune in your head when you were giving a talk

[sgcim]

That's the 2nd time on this forum someone has said something like that about Raney (so it must be true! ) Was trying to think of a guitarist who really considers about what he's about to play, how about Hall, or Sco??

I don't think Hall was as spontaneous a player as Raney, especially on Hall's records.

I say this based on the Jazz Loft recordings that they both played on. In this situation, Hall played very much different than on his recordings, and when I've heard him play live. On the Jazz Loft sessions, he played very excitedly, with more chops than I'd ever heard him play with. Raney followed him sounding no different than his typical playing.

I saw Hall play at The Village West years ago with Ron Carter, and he was basically playing the same solos that he played on the Alone/Together album.
Hall tended to stay with what he knew worked, while Raney tried to reach that place that the players he played regularly with, Getz, Woods, Haig, etc... tried to reach. I don't think he always reached that place, but when he did, it was part of that seemingly magic aspect of jazz that involves brain functions that scientists try to study with MRI's and PET scans, but still can't explain.
I'm not trying to say that Raney was better than Hall- just that they had different approaches to improvisation.

[Groyniad]

i think playing be-bop pushes you to commit to the project of reaching 'that place' - of improvising in the raney way rather than the hall way - to take up sgcim's theme.

i think this approach to playing - with the emphasis on the process of making the music (improvisation) even more than on the music produced - is built into be-bop. this has a lot to do with the tempos involved.

if you had only 1 second to make every move in chess - chess would necessarily become something you had to learn how to do largely without thinking. as it is - the players have time to reflect and deliberate - and they do (which is not to say that a kind of 'seeing' - which is intuitive - plays no essential role in playing chess).

certainly i never find myself doing this: i hear this idea/ i hear this other idea / and this one - and now i think - which of these ideas shall i play? - well the third is the most dramatic, but what i want now is not drama but a gentle resolution of drama, so i'll play the first idea.

if i was just about to go into the bridge and i didn't hear anything at all - then i might think 'oh shiiit'

[princeplanet]

I think Destinytot's post that had the 4 stages of learning is most pertinent, and deserves restating:

1/ you don't know that you don't know
2/ you know that you don't know
3/ you know that you know
4/ you don't know that you know

Now I bet if we're honest, most here would admit to being at stages 2 or 3, with occasional "glimpses" of stage 4.

Stages 2 - 3 seem to require "thought" (planning, consciously recalling etc), where as stage 4 does not. I would venture to say that at stage 4, one could "feel" their way through playing anything. ie - pure "expression".

To quote Lou Reed (RIP): "Between thought and expression lies a lifetime".... Yet there is an interesting link between stage 1 and stage 4, and again it's "pure expression". From naive art to Punk Rock, the "moderns" found a way to skip stages 2 and 3.

I think I know some Free Jazz blowhards trying to pull off the same trick!

[Jonah]

Thinking may be different... we could read Plato and see thinking as spiritual instrument to achieve high targets...
and we could think of which i-thing we should buy next..

both we call thinking

To seriously discuss thinking from pov of philosophy or neurology or any serious I am afraid the forum format is just not enough for this.. and also it is probably not that necessary for the subject

We should not also forget that these questions are also rooted in cultural context: counterposition of thinking and feeling, emotional and rational in the Art (espepecially in music) which became popular in Romatic period and now it is so common that people do not even doubt it..
That question would have been nonsence to Rennaisance of Anciant Greek musician... they just did not see this in such a dualistic way... we just should not forget it also depends on how we see it.. how we make notions...

So I would limit to two didfinition

1) very practical and jazz-wise: thinking as consideration of practical musical tools for improvization while playing
not unconcious/sunconcious.dontknowwhatknow etc. but very concious and understandable.
When I play I think of these chord changes or When I play I do nto think of chor changes etc.

I don't like myself playing BS. Guitar and piano they give technical ability to play BS. You want to blay Ab and you have only to fret it and pick .. or to press the key...
I played trumpet and trombone - and motorics of embouchure is very different much more subtle and you cannot just organize it in way you do with your thingers...
So when you want to Ab your lips mechanically take proper position, and if you make mistake with valvels fingering of slide position (trombone) you will not get the wrong not - actually you will not get any note - because your lips will try to follow your inner hearing trying to Ab where it is impossible to get it - it will be moaning...
I always try to remeber about it when I suddenly see my fingers do fret something on their own... I tell myself in trombone everybody would understand I sucked... so what's that BS for?So of course I think of changes as of many different things - it's part of music... it involves everything.
I do not actually care about it.. it does not bother me as a problem.. I find it fun if I see I have to take more care about some changes.. it's part of music...
If some kid asks: should I think of changes when improvize? I would just ignore the question... the idea is to lead to understanding that he shoudl decide what he is doing it for... to impress the girls.. to reach spiritual heights... to earn maoney and make carreer... to have fun friends.. any option is good.. but when you know you just use what you need.. you need to think about changes - then think.. what's the problem.. you need permission from someone?



2) aesthetical - this is also quite possible to discuss
The feel of ratio, thinking process from musical result, from manner of playing (not the mimics or interviews)

I offer kind of cathegories I use myself below whic stress the dominant feature (not the only one!)

Thinkers:
- Jim Hall - I always hear that he developes some coception and wants to see how it works, his thinking is highly connected directly with compositional technique
- John Coltrane - in his playing I feel ratio and thinking as an intense spritual process, very emotional but still it is thinking, he reminds kind of mystic christian of jewish philosophers who combine passionate prayer whith brisque logic of specualtions
- Thelonius Monk - he is like thinking in the most common sence: ok let's see how it works.. oh no it does not work .. let's go back and star from this side... in his phrasing I can hear it practically as words: he like plays the phrase and then listens to it.. but his thinking is not connected with musical theory

If I use literarure - they are philosophers more

Emotional players - whose playing is characterectic with spontaneous almost accisdental break-throughs
- Bird - of all the jazz players he reminds me most of the Mozart considering terrifying spritual depths he achieved and impossibility to explain how he did it with any analysis (you can find and trace every move and they seem to be so simple and obvious seperately but all together it goes far beyond... or deep inside our world)
- Sonny Stitt - even in his late records he's a kind of street kid who's out there... pprobably even looking for troubles..
- Bill Evans - yes! - though I know he had solid backgroud.. but the feel I get from his music is that all his choices are deeply emotional;

Using literature again - these guys are poets

Narrative players - why I put them separately... because I think improvized 'story-telling' is different aesthetics than improvized emotion or improvized speculations...
These guys are usually more moderate in general - they do not have this tension of mind in playing but also they do not break through with emotions right away... they are more down-to-earth which make them no less valuable...
After all Faulkner just told a long story too...

If I would use literature anlogy I would call them novelists.. or story-writers

Wes for example is classical story-teller for me

Please note that it is possible that they mix of course... for example Monk though he is a thinker but he has a lot of story-telling concept in playing... Grant Green is emotional player to me but he also sticks to story-telling in his way...
Trane is real philosopher (no stories for sure) but his intense mystic passion brings in clear emotional aspect in his playing

[destinytot]

I think Destinytot's post that had the 4 stages of learning is most pertinent, and deserves restating:

1/ you don't know that you don't know
2/ you know that you don't know
3/ you know that you know
4/ you don't know that you know

Now I bet if we're honest, most here would admit to being at stages 2 or 3, with occasional "glimpses" of stage 4.

Stages 2 - 3 seem to require "thought" (planning, consciously recalling etc), where as stage 4 does not. I would venture to say that at stage 4, one could "feel" their way through playing anything. ie - pure "expression".

I'm glad it's useful.

There is a 5th stage: 'knowing that you don't know that you know'.

This is helpful as a self-teaching tool, for reflection and consolidation; you're more likely to be comfortable at stage 2. By reducing cognitive dissonance, you can 'mirror' competence in one area in order to develop competence in other areas, where it is perhaps lacking.

Personally, in terms of vocabulary resources, I'm at the threshold of stage 3. However, I'm also stuck at stage 2 in reading (for guitar) - because I've never mapped my vocabulary resources onto the fretboard. Habitual procrastination:

Addition: page 81 suggests how to stop procrastinating

[destinytot]

Thinking may be different... we could read Plato and see thinking as spiritual instrument to achieve high targets...
and we could think of which i-thing we should buy next..

both we call thinking

To seriously discuss thinking from pov of philosophy or neurology or any serious I am afraid the forum format is just not enough for this.. and also it is probably not that necessary for the subject

We should not also forget that these questions are also rooted in cultural context: counterposition of thinking and feeling, emotional and rational in the Art (espepecially in music) which became popular in Romatic period and now it is so common that people do not even doubt it..
That question would have been nonsence to Rennaisance of Anciant Greek musician... they just did not see this in such a dualistic way... we just should not forget it also depends on how we see it.. how we make notions...

So I would limit to two didfinition

1) very practical and jazz-wise: thinking as consideration of practical musical tools for improvization while playing
not unconcious/sunconcious.dontknowwhatknow etc. but very concious and understandable.
When I play I think of these chord changes or When I play I do nto think of chor changes etc.

I don't like myself playing BS. Guitar and piano they give technical ability to play BS. You want to blay Ab and you have only to fret it and pick .. or to press the key...
I played trumpet and trombone - and motorics of embouchure is very different much more subtle and you cannot just organize it in way you do with your thingers...
So when you want to Ab your lips mechanically take proper position, and if you make mistake with valvels fingering of slide position (trombone) you will not get the wrong not - actually you will not get any note - because your lips will try to follow your inner hearing trying to Ab where it is impossible to get it - it will be moaning...
I always try to remeber about it when I suddenly see my fingers do fret something on their own... I tell myself in trombone everybody would understand I sucked... so what's that BS for?So of course I think of changes as of many different things - it's part of music... it involves everything.
I do not actually care about it.. it does not bother me as a problem.. I find it fun if I see I have to take more care about some changes.. it's part of music...
If some kid asks: should I think of changes when improvize? I would just ignore the question... the idea is to lead to understanding that he shoudl decide what he is doing it for... to impress the girls.. to reach spiritual heights... to earn maoney and make carreer... to have fun friends.. any option is good.. but when you know you just use what you need.. you need to think about changes - then think.. what's the problem.. you need permission from someone?



2) aesthetical - this is also quite possible to discuss
The feel of ratio, thinking process from musical result, from manner of playing (not the mimics or interviews)

I offer kind of cathegories I use myself below whic stress the dominant feature (not the only one!)

Thinkers:
- Jim Hall - I always hear that he developes some coception and wants to see how it works, his thinking is highly connected directly with compositional technique
- John Coltrane - in his playing I feel ratio and thinking as an intense spritual process, very emotional but still it is thinking, he reminds kind of mystic christian of jewish philosophers who combine passionate prayer whith brisque logic of specualtions
- Thelonius Monk - he is like thinking in the most common sence: ok let's see how it works.. oh no it does not work .. let's go back and star from this side... in his phrasing I can hear it practically as words: he like plays the phrase and then listens to it.. but his thinking is not connected with musical theory

If I use literarure - they are philosophers more

Emotional players - whose playing is characterectic with spontaneous almost accisdental break-throughs
- Bird - of all the jazz players he reminds me most of the Mozart considering terrifying spritual depths he achieved and impossibility to explain how he did it with any analysis (you can find and trace every move and they seem to be so simple and obvious seperately but all together it goes far beyond... or deep inside our world)
- Sonny Stitt - even in his late records he's a kind of street kid who's out there... pprobably even looking for troubles..
- Bill Evans - yes! - though I know he had solid backgroud.. but the feel I get from his music is that all his choices are deeply emotional;

Using literature again - these guys are poets

Narrative players - why I put them separately... because I think improvized 'story-telling' is different aesthetics than improvized emotion or improvized speculations...
These guys are usually more moderate in general - they do not have this tension of mind in playing but also they do not break through with emotions right away... they are more down-to-earth which make them no less valuable...
After all Faulkner just told a long story too...

If I would use literature anlogy I would call them novelists.. or story-writers

Wes for example is classical story-teller for me

Please note that it is possible that they mix of course... for example Monk though he is a thinker but he has a lot of story-telling concept in playing... Grant Green is emotional player to me but he also sticks to story-telling in his way...
Trane is real philosopher (no stories for sure) but his intense mystic passion brings in clear emotional aspect in his playing

I enjoyed the observations and examples of dominant characteristics in players' aesthetic approaches.
(I like good criticism, which - like the above post - can add to the development of taste; I particularly enjoy reading or listening to knowledgeable critics' appreciation of work they've enjoyed.)

Regarding my own playing, I'm currently more concerned about repairing the effects caused by trying to run before I can walk. I find

unconcious/sunconcious.dontknowwhatknow etc.

to be not only practical but also prosaic.

My own priority is distinguishing 'slips' from 'errors'. Like me, others may find 'fossilization' (coined by Selenker in his theory on 'interlanguage') a useful concept.