Thinking while playing

[mr. beaumont]

Great observations, all.

So let me go back to my painting example, for a minute. I dig larger scale non-representational/abstract expressionistic painting, it's what I do.

The whole process of a painting is like the improviser's quest...I have an idea--a framework. That's the tune. I'll sketch that idea, get to know it, and then I'll start painting. Now back when I first started painting, I had to think about things like "okay, how to I make that color?" and "how do I get that contrast effect I want?"

That's that first level of improvisation, you're telling your hands what to do...in something time based like music--too much and you're in trouble. Painting's a little different, but it can work itself into impasses...I can't get this point, I can't get beyond this point.

I progress and I get to where I can paint without thinking about any fundamentals...I can just go for it. This is that second level, the "forget all that shit and play." There's sublevels here too, the highest of which is that true "flow" or being in the "zone", where the painting/music "plays" itself.

And then there is beyond...That point where I can interrupt the flow, make conscious decisions, changes, not just spur of the moment feeling it, but actually kind of slowing down time...actually being able to visualize a few different possibilities...and then, seamlessly get back into the "flow." This is that highest level I'm thinking about.

With music, I've only seen glimpses, I'm not that good. But I feel I know it's there...I take a tune I've played since the beginning of my jazz learning, 12-13 years ago, like say "Misty." Now I've played Misty thousands of times...I can play Misty and let my hands take over. I can play Misty at a restaurant and talk to somebody at the same time and not fuck it up. I can play Misty in a way where I can be going and consciously make a decision to try something new (not that it always works) half way through. That's what I'm talking about.

So if I can do it on one or three tunes, what's to say the cat who's much better than I, worked harder, much longer, couldn't do it more often...if not, almost all the time? That ability to go back and forth between the conscious and subconscious, seamlessly...

The Raney bit Jonah talked about was interesting to me, where he said if (I parapharase) "if he wan't feeling it, he had enough musical knowledge to fall back on." I'd argue, this is that highest level...it's not just about having enough musical knowledge to fall back on, can you fall back on it AND nobody notices?

Ok, I'm done with my hippy dippy bit.

[zdub]

Imo this is why singing what you play is very important. It keeps you from letting your fingers create the music, and ensures it comes from your mind.

I also try to divide my practice time between tunes and new vocabulary so fresh ideas work their way in..... Eventually.

The above coupled with learning lots of tunes helps with playing well on music your seeing for the first time. That being said, if someone hands you something giant steps'esqe..... Well, good luck.

Great advice.

Long time ago I went to Joe Pass workshop. He'd invite folks to come up & play with him. At one point he stopped a volunteer who was playing a particularly nice solo over Cherokee and asked him to sing along while he improvised. Which he did perfectly. Joe then told everyone "that's it! That's why there is continuity to the playing and a sense of awareness to the improv."

[vintagelove]

Here is an example that everyone here who teaches, or ever watched a lesson or demonstration has surely run into.


anytime you consciously demonstrate a single concept, it alway comes out half of ones ability. It's like your blocking off a large portion of your brain. Take your favorite player, tell me you haven't seen them present a concept, then when they go to play it, it comes out ok, then they same, "something like that".

Then you hear them actually play the tune, and it's 10x better. It's an odd phenomenon, but I see it all the time. Perhaps actively blocking out all the possible connections in ones brain/imagination/I don't know what to call it, seriously inhibit ones ability to be creative and spontaneous?

[pkirk]

here's another thought on the topic. In conversation, you can think about what you are/will be saying, but you can also listen carefully to what is being said by others. We all know people who can listen carefully, and others who are always feel an urgency to inject their thought and thereby cannot listen well.

So one take on this question is "can you be thinking while you are listening carefully to others?"

I'll take as an axiom that playing jazz well requires above all the ability to listen to the other musicians. This is something that you cannot experience when you are practicing by yourself. In addition, effective practice *requires* you to be thinking about what you are doing.

Of course "thinking" is sufficiently broad so that if you are sentient, you are thinking. But a lot of the conversation in this thread seems focused on "thinking" in the sense of "consciously calculating how to inject the ideas *you have practiced* into the music", and if we take that definition of it, I'm suggesting that you're better off not thinking, since it tends to make it difficult to listen.

[destinytot]

I'm suggesting that you're better off not thinking, since it tends to make it difficult to listen.

Even when you do your best not to think, thinking can show up as 'mental noise'. From Effortless Mastery by Kenny Werner (whom I'm going to hear locally at a tiny club next week): "Many people are crippled by an inability to focus and by a sense of being overwhelmed. These problems are often mistaken for laziness or lethargy. There is a grand paradox in why we can’t focus."

[sgcim]

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

Some good points here, but the BS factor in guitarists and pianists playing is a complicated subject, especially in the POV of horn players.

When I was student teaching years ago, my mentor was a jazz saxophone player who had never heard me play.
I hadn't been practicing back then because of an impossible schedule, and he asked me to play at about 7:30am one morning.
I knew I couldn't play, but he insisted, so I cranked out some out of time BS on a POS guitar they had laying around.

His comment was, 'that's what I hate about all you guitarists, you play too many notes.'
I tried to tell him that I was totally out of it, but he was too happy with my confirming his attitude toward guitarists in general to listen.

On the other hand, when I was up to my game in a concert with Clark Terry, he was responding with 'yeah, baby' after every phrase I played.

One problem is guitarists trying to take on too much tempo-wise, when they just can't handle the tempos horn players throw at us, so it sounds like we're just noodling.

It's also a highly subjective matter that can change according to the mood you're in. I used to accuse many of the chops oriented guitarists of just playing busy BS, but at a later hearing my opinion changed, so I've tried to zipper shut my mouth when it comes to opinions on other players, no matter how much BS they seemed to be playing.

Because jazz improvisation is the most spontaneous of all the arts, there's usually more BS than the other arts.

[Jonah]

Some good points here, but the BS factor in guitarists and pianists playing is a complicated subject, especially in the POV of horn players.

When I was student teaching years ago, my mentor was a jazz saxophone player who had never heard me play.
I hadn't been practicing back then because of an impossible schedule, and he asked me to play at about 7:30am one morning.
I knew I couldn't play, but he insisted, so I cranked out some out of time BS on a POS guitar they had laying around.

His comment was, 'that's what I hate about all you guitarists, you play too many notes.'
I tried to tell him that I was totally out of it, but he was too happy with my confirming his attitude toward guitarists in general to listen.

On the other hand, when I was up to my game in a concert with Clark Terry, he was responding with 'yeah, baby' after every phrase I played.

One problem is guitarists trying to take on too much tempo-wise, when they just can't handle the tempos horn players throw at us, so it sounds like we're just noodling.

It's also a highly subjective matter that can change according to the mood you're in. I used to accuse many of the chops oriented guitarists of just playing busy BS, but at a later hearing my opinion changed, so I've tried to zipper shut my mouth when it comes to opinions on other players, no matter how much BS they seemed to be playing.

Because jazz improvisation is the most spontaneous of all the arts, there's usually more BS than the other arts.

I agree... and when I said about BS I meant not only speed but also the fact that you can play notes even without actually hearing them... just technical ability...
Horns technically closer to voice - you cannot sing if you cannot hear.. horns atleast brass are close to that in concern of sound production..
(Though to be true if it's just another level - mostly you can hear it with piano and guiatr just not that obvious... by phrasing for examble)

And I also spoke only about myself in this concern..

besides I think it is quite ok to start with.. maybe even BS... as I say sometimes .. you never know if you don't do it... it may take a 8-16 bars before you get into the mood... and if not.. well that's ok maybe next time...
That's what I love in jazz... you make mistake ok it's gone it's past immediately you're already in the citcumstance and go on...

I know even claasical players who start like this before they get involved into music gradually... and to me it's better than ideally elaborated mediocracy

It's also a highly subjective matter that can change according to the mood you're in. I used to accuse many of the chops oriented guitarists of just playing busy BS, but at a later hearing my opinion changed, so I've tried to zipper shut my mouth when it comes to opinions on other players, no matter how much BS they seemed to be playing.

Of course but it concerns anything... I have my opinios .. they may change.. I don't think we have to appologize for that...
Probably it's just not necessary to let them know the opinion... it's seldom that people fake it deliberately usually they believe in what they are doing... there's chance that one day I can share their belief of maybe not

[Jonah]

here's another thought on the topic. In conversation, you can think about what you are/will be saying, but you can also listen carefully to what is being said by others. We all know people who can listen carefully, and others who are always feel an urgency to inject their thought and thereby cannot listen well.

So one take on this question is "can you be thinking while you are listening carefully to others?"

I'll take as an axiom that playing jazz well requires above all the ability to listen to the other musicians. This is something that you cannot experience when you are practicing by yourself. In addition, effective practice *requires* you to be thinking about what you are doing.

Of course "thinking" is sufficiently broad so that if you are sentient, you are thinking. But a lot of the conversation in this thread seems focused on "thinking" in the sense of "consciously calculating how to inject the ideas *you have practiced* into the music", and if we take that definition of it, I'm suggesting that you're better off not thinking, since it tends to make it difficult to listen.

Interesting development of topic...

I would add just that listneing can be opposed to speaking not to thinking here

So to your question

"can you be thinking while you are listening carefully to others?"

I will answer: of course.. not only I can... but I have to think while listening carefully to the others.
But definitely I cannot speak with meaning and listne carefully simultaneously

[christianm77]

I think there are parallels with learning to speak a foreign language, and with learning to drive. Ultimately, although I'm a long from achieving it, the craft of the actor is my ideal.

What I see in common is a shift in the focus of attention as one advances. A beginner, elementary, or intermediate student of a foreign language or driving practises in order to develop conscious control of syntax in the former and the use of pedals, levers and wheels in the latter. In practising either, the goal is unconscious competence; this frees the mind to think beyond the 'how to' in favour of the 'where to' - adapting and adjusting to circumstances with flexibilty (and moving beyond pragmatics to style). I can't remember where I got it, but this model speaks for itself:
Attachment 20493
Regarding the actor's craft, I find value in David Mamet's advice (summarised below by a filmmaker) to become outward-directed. The person learning to speak a foreign language must eventually listen and respond to an interlocutor, and the learner driver must move off into traffic; the intermediate student in both fields requires sympathetic circumstances, i.e. a patient interlocutor and roads that aren't too busy (and an instructor ready to take control of the vehicle). The actor's interaction, however, elevates communication with audiences to an art. Here's Mamet (who has no time for method acting or formal training):

"Become outward-directed. “Nothing in life is as interesting as a man trying to get a knot out of his shoelace.” – Brecht

The more a person’s concentration is outward, the more naturally interesting that person becomes. This is what makes a person with an objective come alive: they have to take their attention off themselves and put it on the person they want something from.

This is the misjudgment of the Method: the notion that one can determine the effect one wants to have on an audience, and then study and supply said effect. This is not only selfish and joyless, but a waste of time. Our effect is not for us to know. Only our intention is under our control.

The audience is looking for spontaneity, for individuality, for strength. They aren’t going to get it from your tired old interpretive powers."
(From Invent Nothing, Deny Nothing: Gleaning the Essence from Mamet’s True and False)

It's a bit of a boring post for me to make, but I love this post. I think the outward-directed thing is huge. So thanks for putting it succinctly.

[christianm77]

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

We all have elements of stage 4 in our playing - even if it's just one lick (often one we'd rather we didn't play haha.) The trick of it is to make sure that as much of what you do is stage 4 as possible (!)

Kenny Werner seems to advise that there is a way of practicing that makes unconscious mastery more reliable to achieve. His video on jazzheaven.com is interesting - has anyone watched it?

[Jonah]

Here is an example that everyone here who teaches, or ever watched a lesson or demonstration has surely run into.


anytime you consciously demonstrate a single concept, it alway comes out half of ones ability. It's like your blocking off a large portion of your brain. Take your favorite player, tell me you haven't seen them present a concept, then when they go to play it, it comes out ok, then they same, "something like that".

Then you hear them actually play the tune, and it's 10x better. It's an odd phenomenon, but I see it all the time. Perhaps actively blocking out all the possible connections in ones brain/imagination/I don't know what to call it, seriously inhibit ones ability to be creative and spontaneous?

it's an imposrtant post...

to me it says that thinking is just not the only way of organizing reality... and what's great about art that it allows to use all of them and unconventionally...

[targuit]

Cleaning out the basement today I ran into an old premier issue of a jazz magazine, Jazz One, 'the magazine you can play with ten songs and over forty solos. Pretty nice. The cover photo - Sonny Rollins talks Improvisation. April 1999.

To quote Sonny from the article. "When I am really playing at my best, the music is sort of playing itself. I'm just standing there moving the keys The music is coming,but I am not thinking about it. That's the state I try to reach: where I don't think about it. Every night I try to reach this level and I succeed to a greater or lesser degree.

This is a really nice magazine premier edition. I don't think I ever saw this mag again. Very well done lead sheets with solos by great artists.

[grahambop]

Cleaning out the basement today I ran into an old premier issue of a jazz magazine, Jazz One, 'the magazine you can play with ten songs and over forty solos. Pretty nice. The cover photo - Sonny Rollins talks Improvisation. April 1999.

To quote Sonny from the article. "When I am really playing at my best, the music is sort of playing itself. I'm just standing there moving the keys The music is coming,but I am not thinking about it. That's the state I try to reach: where I don't think about it. Every night I try to reach this level and I succeed to a greater or lesser degree.

This is a really nice magazine premier edition. I don't think I ever saw this mag again. Very well done lead sheets with solos by great artists.

I think I have a very slight inkling of what Sonny means. Occasionally when I've been recording my playing, I get a moment where I don't really know what I'm doing, but some subconscious part of my brain is telling my fingers what to do, and it just seems right to let it happen. Usually those turn out to be the best bits, or at least the most spontaneous, or a phrase which I have never used before.

[Jonah]

the spirit breathes where it will

it's just not thinking that makes music... may help to organize it, gives a tool to approach but it does not make it.

[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

Returning to this great post after three 'good' (and very different) gigs and having tried to notice my mental activity while playing/performing. I realised that I'm unable to name what goes on, but the word 'thinking' doesn't cover it for me.

Jonah put it best:

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...

I 'think' (as in... er... 'opine' - says he, all supine...) a Myers-Briggs profile might offer at least a handle on the door to one's own (personal) 'best fit' for what Jonah says about:

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!)

Emerson,"Ne te quaesiveris extra." (Seek nothing outside yourself)

[targuit]

Frankly, from a scientific point of view, doing MRI scans or PET scans are very helpful in individuating sites of brain activated during the improvisation performance. Philosophy is nice, but knowing which areas of the brain are active tells you a lot of valuable info. The fact that the same nuclei and cortical sites are active as occurs in dreaming is certainly significant. As far as I know, the Greeks did not have PET scans.

[destinytot]

As far as I know, the Greeks did not have PET scans.

As far as I know, their aesthetic legacy needn't involve bloodletting or purges in order to be relevant to modern culture.

[Tag101]

As far as I know, the Greeks did not have PET scans.

Try telling that to ancient astronaut enthusiasts.

[vintagelove]

Frankly, from a scientific point of view, doing MRI scans or PET scans are very helpful in individuating sites of brain activated during the improvisation performance. Philosophy is nice, but knowing which areas of the brain are active tells you a lot of valuable info. The fact that the same nuclei and cortical sites are active as occurs in dreaming is certainly significant. As far as I know, the Greeks did not have PET scans.

From what have seen, good improvisers shut down part of their frontal cortex (in laymans terms, think of it as the part of the brain that keeps you from acting inappropriately/saying inappropriate things). Dimming activity in this region is apparently critical in being able to take chances, ie the willingness to make a mistake to discover something new.

there were actually excercises to improve creativity that were apparently successful. They involved experiencing (through virtual reality) things that were impossible, such as things falling up.

Pretty interesting stuff.

[princeplanet]

I'm glad it's useful.

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

Not to mention the 6th stage : "Not knowing that you know that you don't know that you know'.....

[christianm77]

Very interesting science...

I'm beginning to think that the most important thing for a musician though is the subjective realm. Which is funny because we spend a lot of time trying to measure what we do objectively.

It starts to seem that Sonny Rollins perceives himself 'letting the music play itself', we perceive him having amazing time and endless ideas, and science perceives him shutting down part of his brain (temporarily.)

(There's an obvious question here... I'm sure someone will pick it up...)

Needless to say I've been delving into the Kenny Werner stuff (jury's still out for me, but I like the concept at least), but that's only one way of attempting to practice playing without using the conscious mind. While I've known this was the goal for some time, it's another thing to find effective tools that allow you enter and explore this world. Of course, there are many overlaps with things like Zen Buddhism and so on.

[Jonah]

I'm beginning to think that the most important thing for a musician though is the subjective realm. Which is funny because we spend a lot of time trying to measure what we do objectively.

Christian,

I am sure subjective or objective are also notions belonging to certain mindset, concept, worldview... I am sure it is quite possible to be neither... so it's not funny at all

In most cases it's not mesearing objectively but just conventionally ... big difference: conventionality is not necessarily related to objectiveness though often considered to be that for granted.

It starts to seem that Sonny Rollins perceives himself 'letting the music play itself', we perceive him having amazing time and endless ideas, and science perceives him shutting down part of his brain (temporarily.)

And it's ok because any conception operates with its own notion... that's why science cannot go any farther (concept does not allow to do it) with that and Sonny Rollins can)))

it's not truth what they express.. if we wanht to believe we can say any of this expressed perceptions have the same essence behind theirconventional forms... if we don't it's ok... it's only question of belief and it is also ok

[vintagelove]

Also keep in mind, to get to the music playing itself stage, requires lots of thoughtful practice.

[targuit]

I think there is a visceral connection here that no one is mentioning. Emotion. However it works neurologically in the auditory system, music seems to have direct emotional connotations and effects on our minds and bodies, which are one. There is a strong tendency on this forum to make the often unstated assumption that somehow if someone just studies enough music theory, learns every scale in the Universe, and practices till the tips of their fingers are raw that they will become skilled improvisers. But, the best musicians in my opinion communicate a fundamentally emotional message to their audience that touches and engages them.

I'm reminded of my responses the first time I heard Metheny's Secret Story CD. There is a strong emotional freight in his music which to me is not at all analytical but more representative of a beautiful painting or a cinematic landscape that evolves. Part of the skill of an improviser is evoking those emotional responses, and perhaps that is why the best seek to 'sing' with their instrument, to reach beyond the analytical to the primal responses that resonate in their audience's consciousness. That is the kind of music that moves and inspires me and the goal towards which I aspire.