-
Nice! I'm actually working on the same sonata. Though I'm impatient and skipped the first movement and went straight into the fugue. I learned it about 6 years and loved playing it so much! So much beautiful stuff going on! But then I stopped playing it for a few months and it was gone.
Finally pulled the book back off the shelf about a week ago and slowly working my way through it again. Only about halfway through the first page.
-
06-12-2015 01:00 AM
-
OK checked out the Jerry Bergonzi DVD again. Basically he starts with 'sequences' so these are 'diatonically adjacent' notes I guess. So could be C D E F, etc. He moves them up or down stepwise as he takes them through the tune. You can play them in a different order than 'C D E F' though, but whichever order you choose, you stick with it, just moving the sequence up or down as you go through the tune.
Originally Posted by jordanklemons
Then he moves on to 3-note 'shapes'. These are similar, but they don't have to be 'adjacent' notes. So could be like your examples above. He just classifies these as 'up down' or similar permutations, so you can choose any diatonic notes you like in the chosen configuration. Then he extends this to 4-note shapes, then 5-note shapes.
Then he adds an approach note to the first note, or an enclosure.
-
Sure! They are a bit vague or difficult to describe... I think the 3 main "concepts" would be: Originally Posted by jordanklemons
Call-Response (you probably have an idea what that is from blues?)
Statement follow-up Which is similar to call response but does not have two layers or voices
Vocal like, which is basically trying to improvise "a new melody" on a standard which sounds like it might be vocal and have lyrics.
All of the above are more things that I spend time on while improvising, sometimes in rubato (which works well for the statement - follow up sort of idea)
I did by the way make this lesson on motifs recently:
Maybe somebody finds it useful?
Jens
-
Yea good points and approach to improv. reference... relationship and develop... pretty standard approach to almost anything in music. The details are always the fun part.
When I create motifs, create relationships and develop etc... I generally always hear harmonically , somewhat like Jens last post was doing. Take a melody figure or phrase and that becomes the rhythmic pattern... the relationships are created harmonically, through harmonic movement.
Even using something like your 4 note patterns above... the organization of the changes or development is personally what makes the concepts catchy or not become boring...
I mean there are standard formulas for spatial organization which help create different effects... tension release or just forward motion etc... and the complexity and layers of relationships always helps create some type of sound and feel which draws listeners in.
If there is one concept... say one moving note in the pattern, and you use standard two and one approach. Two changes and one repeat or tie to the reference... and keep going, it becomes pretty boring etc...but if you have that organization going on and add other layers of organization... and the spatial organization also has an organized pattern... like a 3 /2 pattern... the note change and say blue note usage but having different spatial sync repeat patterns... anyway sounds more complicated that actually is... it's generally very natural. I mean what is a groove and what makes it lock.
With the classical tradition of notation based music and much more time to organize the performance... how can you go wrong, but when playing in a jazz style and trying to use these concepts while playing at the speed of Jazz... yea it;s difficult, sorry off topic...
Anyway I have trouble just hearing melodic development without harmonic reference...
-
Hiya,
Just a quick one to say - lovely playing. That's some very musical playing over GS - not easy.
I may have to have a go at this approach myself. Motivic improv is really not my strong point. Perhaps I might start with an easier tune.
-
Ah thanks Christian. I appreciate that. Originally Posted by christianm77
I tell you what man, I worked on that tune for yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaars before I felt like I was scratching the surface of pretending like maybe I was sort of kind of playing music with it. It's still a work in progress. But I at least feel like I can sort of play melodically over it...sort of. Practices like this help.
I would definitely recommend starting the practice with a tune you know really really well. If you're anything like me, playing motivically through changes is hard enough as it is, so it's best to not have to think about anything else...form, changes, playing fast, etc.
I hope you'll share something if you give it a try. This thread really isn't about GS as much as it is motivic playing. I just used that because I filmed that video for another thread and thought it would be worth starting one specifically about the great, ever elusive motif.
-
Yeah man...good stuff! Thanks! Originally Posted by JensL
-
Is it? Seemed on topic to me. No worries either way. Originally Posted by Reg
Seems like you take more of the pattern oriented Bergonzi approach that Graham was talking about. I'm so bad with that approach, I should spend more time on it. I just find my attention span is short and gets bored quickly and wants to start developing the motif melodically.
But I find listening back that it feels rushed to me. Perhaps spending time working on this stuff with a specific pattern that I'm not allowed to let go of would help teach me to be more patient so that when I do start to develop it, it's more...something....not sure the word.
Who knows. All good stuff though. I must say though...I do love the sound of Coltrane or Wayne or whoever, giving us an idea and then constantly mutating it, never showing us the same thing twice, always changing, but always consistent and always respectful and humble to the musical idea more than to themselves. That $#!T just hits me deep!
-
I've read (on the net, so ???)that Trane practiced GS for many months before recording it. The rest of band got the lead sheet at the session, and more surprising, again from the webs, that he never played it again, in concerts or clubs.
I think that Jordan said more with that clip than I lot of guys I've heard wanking endlessly at 220bpm. Really enjoyable listening; you made it a song not an exercise.
-
Wow, whiskey...really that is too kind. I've always been more of the Jim Hall mentality. Less is more type thing. I was amazed how much he could say with so few notes. I sort of accidentally ended up attending a JH masterclass when I was about 15. I'd never heard of the guy and wasn't listening to jazz at all. But they way he talked about music and played really floored me and had a big impact on my development.
Many years later, a teacher of mine said something to me that impacted me as much, if not more, than Jim's masterclass. We played a tune together at our first lesson. At the end of it I looked up. He was looking at me with a smile and nodding his head. He said, "Yeah man. You're really good at playing all the right notes."
Awkward moment of silence.
Then he leaned in with and followed up, "You know........a computer can play all the right notes too, right?"
That 10 second encounter shattered me and my little ego big time. Most of what I've been working on since that moment has been trying to become more human and less mechanical. Not that there aren't some amazing players out there with staggering technique. But it's just not what I want for my music. I only tell that story because your comment about it making it sound like a song and not an exercise really hits home for me. It's always nice when things we slave over for countless hours in our private lives come across to others.
Anyways...touching stuff aside. I've heard similar things with the recording session from GS. I heard he shed that tune for a long time before taking it into the studio. And when the guys in the group saw the chart they were expecting it to be a ballad. When he started snapping his fingers for the count off I heard everyone freaked out! Haha...who knows if it really went down that way. But I can only imagine!
I wonder if that's true that he never gigged that tune after it was recorded. I find that tough to believe. But who knows. He was always pushing forward and trying to grow and bring in new material...so I suppose it's possible. Anyone know?
-
Originally Posted by jordanklemons
Just curious, where would you draw the line, if any, between playing patterns vs motifs (vs lines) on a tune like gs? Is there a difference in your eyes?
I suppose it it would be developing the motif, vs using a fixed pattern....
Does it make a difference to you interest wise?
i only as because.... I had worked on the tune for a small time in the typical "wannabe Coltrane" fashion and collected a nice bunch of patterns. Then I saw the Barry Harris? Video on gs.... He said he hated that horn player sound (I pretty much learned from horn players) and that people should focus on trying to make long melodic lines through the changes.
Now, normally I really don't care about what others think about my playing, as I have an artistic goal I am striving toward. Also, I really like the pattern sound. However he is a damn good piano player and worth listening to, and his point made sense. After that it sort of took a back seat in my practice, but when I occasionally go through it, I try to play more lines than patterns.
opinion? Thanks
-
Seems like you sort of answered the first part already. Yeah, a fixed pattern is fixed. It mutates only enough to allow for the changing harmony under it. A motif on the other hand can do that (a grouper is always a fish, but a fish isn't always a grouper), but it can also develop and change. It can be inverted. It can be broken into pieces. It can be altered. It can grow and have more notes added to it. We can do anything we want to a motif. Including keeping it perfectly fixed. Originally Posted by vintagelove
That's how I see the difference.
As for my interest level. It can make a difference. But it's not so black and white. It's not necessarily that I prefer one straight up, to the exclusion of the other. I'd prefer to listen to players who have the ability to make music. If either, or both, of these musical tools help them express themselves emotionally through sound, chances are good I will be captivated. If either, or both, of these musical tools are misused or abused and are not used creatively...I may lose interest. Or if they can ONLY play one way. I just want to hear a story. A statement. Every musician will approach this stuff in their own way.
When I listen to my favorite players, they usually leave me in a state of not thinking about or noticing the musical tools they're employing. I'm not asking myself what time signature this is, or wow what did they just do with that motif, or anything like that. I'm just in silent awe...like standing and looking at a waterfall. Except I'm grinning ear to ear, and I can't get my toes to stop tapping.
But in my experience, I don't see guys like that, and playing like that, happening naturally or by accident. These guys work harder at it than most of us can understand.
I haven't watched Barry's GS video, so I can't offer an opinion there. All I can say is that Barry is an amazing player and educator. But to keep things in context, he's a bebopper. Which is great. But music evolves and grows over time. Bebop is one of my favorite momentary 'snap shots' in the ever-evolving movement of music. But it is just a snapshot. It relied mostly on beautifully formed, long lines that just flowed out of the musicians like an unending spring. And I love listening to those guys, and I work on that type of playing a lot as well. I have my games and ways of practicing that stuff too. Originally Posted by vintagelove
But after that era, other forms of jazz came along, and other players came along, and altered the face of the vocabulary. They didn't necessarily throw away the bebop phrasing, but they added into it more thematic and motivic concepts.
Seems to me the really modern stuff today is starting to go back to the more bebop mentality of the long lines again, but still without letting go of the motivic elements as well.
I played rock, funk, blues, and 'jamband' stuff for a long time before falling in love with jazz. Neither the motivic nor the long, flowing bebop lines come naturally to me. And certainly not the deep, pianistic-esque harmonic stuff that I hear and want in my playing. Most everything I do is an attempt on my part to bring in, internalize, and make seem natural the musical elements that I want in my playing but that are not natural to me.
On a total side note...one of my favorite recorded solos is Barry on Sidewinder. He follows up after Lee Morgan and Joe Henderson who are just going all over the place playing long flowing beautiful lines with such intensity. Then Barry comes in with that one note and just sits on it messing around with the rhythm. And he totally employs some motivic development in his solo in my ear. Really keeps things simple. And it's such a fun, playful, and thoughtful contrast to the previous two solos.
-
Hi Jordan,
I will not go much further ibto Beethoven and other calssical samples - it is too big a topic and will get into off-top... I'd like to note only hat whenever you use Beethoven's as a an example please consider that he uses motovic development mostly to create a theme... and that dramtic development of this movement is sonat form based on functional tonality first of all... yes Beethoven really began to work with motives intensively (you should look at his notebooks with dozens of variants) and it made kind of 'trend' for the future...
He brought this tool on the front line, involved it in the dramatic system...
Never in baroque and classical music motivic development was so much in focus
But we should not forget that with all that the lead of this music is harmonic development.
To be fair in my opinion it was all the first step to decay... because means of motivic developmet are much more limited than fuctinal tonality harmonic means (imho)
As per jazz.. I was thinking about last days .. and I think that there's one thing to note...
'playing scales' or 'playing through changes' that you opposed to 'motivic development' are different tools to...
You cannot use scales or changes for development .. you can use them for maiing melodies, motives etc.
these too give material for motives and background for motivic development... they are technical tools
And motivic development is creative tool..
what can you do with the motive outside some greater context? Maybe some rythmic variations...
In jazz for my ear it often leads to the feel of overestimating the importance.. I mean I feel the player takes it seriously, he knows he developes something etc. but musically the result for me sounds of much less musical value than it was intended to be...
But on the other hand it's inveitable... it is practcally the only rational tool in jazz beyond rythm to create musical integrity .. to overcome fragmentary nature of jazz form...
I get back to Peter Bernstein - he developes motives all the time but he does not sound pretentious.. it shoudl be natural ear you know... you just should hear how motive developes then build a technical approach to organize it... then it will work...
PS
You sound very natural to me by the way...
-
Hey Jonah. I really shouldn't comment too much on the classical side. I love classical and listen to it a good bit, but I'm really no scholar. There are many people out there, probably even on this forum, that can speak with much more authority about the history and intention of different composers. I just enjoy listening to it and learning little tidbits along the way. Originally Posted by Jonah
As for the jazz side. Again, as I said earlier, this is a practice routine. It doesn't mean I would necessarily play exactly like this in a performance. It's an exercise I do when I'm practicing to strengthen certain muscles.
When I perform, I will often mix these types of ideas with statements and ornamentations from the actual melody, as well as longer more bebop-influenced lines. Or wherever my ear goes. But my ear tends to prefer either utilizing the tune's melody and/or developing thematic material. And for me, that stuff doesn't come naturally, so I have to practice it. Otherwise, I won't be able to play those ideas with any sense of clarity when I hear them.
Often times when I hear players - guys who are not on Peter Bernstein's level (side note, Pete was who I was telling the story about in an earlier post about my teacher calling me out for "playing all the right notes") I don't always hear a whole lot of melodic integrity. It often just sounds like things are meandering aimlessly. Like maybe they're playing pre-worked out riffs, but nothing feels connected or moving.
During my time with Pete, we actually talked about single note improvisation very little. But when we did, it was mostly based around trying to stay with the melody. He doesn't have a specific system or method. So he very well may teach other students very differently from how he taught me. But when we worked on single note improvisation, he generally wanted me to stick to the melody. Basically to play the melody but to get really creative with it....mess with the phrasing, change the rhythms around, take out notes, or add extra notes, etc. That's another game I will play when I'm working on a tune. Just another exercise to keep me from 'playing all the right notes'.
I'm not saying I will NEVER use scales or arpeggios to make changes. Only offering up the notion that there are other ways to approach them...and to share one of the ways that I practice that.
Thinking about this stuff, and practicing this way, helps me get outside of my head and away from playing what I already know. When I get put into a group in a performance, I may not do this stuff at all. But the muscles that this exercise strengthens still are at work. They help keep me away from playing the same stuff I know and getting stuck in my head and my ego. They help me listen to what's going on around me, hear the ideas that the other guys are offering to the music, and be able to quickly assimilate their ideas into what I'm playing. This makes me more empathetic to the other musicians in that I'm not trying to force what I want all the time. It helps me keep an ear to what they're doing also, and incorporate their stuff into my playing. Which doesn't always mean imitating them. It might mean filling in a negative space, or getting out of their way completely so they can say something. But it keeps me out of my head and helps me quickly notice patterns that are going on. If they are.
-
Not trying to hijack your thread, Jordan, but there are several video excerpts from Jerry Bergonzi available on Youtube.
Here is one:
Not exactly what you are talking about but yet another "game" one can play to spur growth.
-
If you're looking on how to work with motifs and develop them, it is something that Schoenberg put a lot of effort into exploring and explaining. He provided examples in one of his books of ways you can mess with motifs- not exhaustive, but a good grounding.
But then, I'm a massive Schoenberg fan, so I'm probably biased.
-
No worries at all man. This is great! Thanks for sharing it! Originally Posted by AlsoRan
I was expecting much more of a "here's the pattern, don't deviate it at all except to fit the harmony" type of thing. This seems like a middle ground between that very strict way of using a pattern and the more open-ended motivic development approach I was talking about.
It's nice. I'm going to try this for sure. Might be a good way to 'trick' myself into being more patient and not going straight into 'development mode'.
-
Do you recall the name of the book? I'd love to check it out. A buddy of mine studied with Mark Turner for a while and Mark turned him onto this theory book that some classical composer had written. I don't think it was Schoenberg, but I can't remember now. But Mark was way into studying that stuff and got my friend hooked on it too. He was constantly bringing up these really interesting 'classical' theory ideas. Originally Posted by Shadow of the Sun
-
Fundamentals of Music Composition is what has his examples of developing motifs and the like. I enjoyed it, but for a lot of people here it might be rehashing old stuff.
-
That is on the DVD I've got. These are 'shapes' so you can vary them. Before that he did 'sequences' where it's more like what you describe above. But he always encourages varying the rhythm of the phrase, which beat you start it on, etc. Originally Posted by jordanklemons
-
Hi,
this is exactly what I was looking for! Is there any book out there with some exercises and examples anyone can recommend? I mean for using a motive and playing it on all the changes.
Regards,
Ricardo
-
Hey Ricardo, I don't personally know of any books on the subject... though I imagine there are some out there. I just never really used any books in my journey, so I don't know what they are. Originally Posted by p4chuss2
But if you're interested in this type of practicing/playing... my best advice is to not try to make things to complex and challenging in the beginning. You really need to lay a base, a strong foundation that you can grow from.
Maybe start over just a stagnant chord... or a stagnant scale. Just try and improvise simple melodies (2-3 notes max in the beginning) but think of it like giving a speech. You don't want the sentences to be disconnected. Whatever your first sentence of 'the speech' is, try and make every other sentence that follows relate to the original. The simpler the better.
If that gets easy, you can start to make the melodies a little longer or more complex.
Or, you can apply the same idea and simplicity to playing over a 2 5 1. If that gets easy, you can apply it to a blues, or a simple standard that you know really well. Make sure if you're doing this with a tune that you KNOW the tune. You shouldn't be reading changes for this. You entire focus needs to be on maintaining the melodic/rhythmic motif you're developing. If you find yourself 'noodling' or playing riffs you know, just work yourself back into the melodic content again. It's as much about mental focus as anything else. It's really hard to prevent ourselves from just playing what we know, but motivic playing requires that of us.
Looking forward to hearing how it's going for you!
-
Thanks for this and all your sharings, jordanklemons.
I like your word, games .
-
Morton Feldman is a bad MFer Originally Posted by Jonah
great to see people tuned into it here on this forum!!
-
You're welcome Uffe. And thanks for pointing out 'games'. I didn't even notice that before. Jim Hall's always been a big influence on me. I remember reading him in an interview once, when asked how much he practices, say that he doesn't practice but that he tries to open up the guitar case and toss in some meat on a regular basis. Originally Posted by Uffe Steen
It made me think of the idea that he wasn't trying to master the guitar as a tool so much, but rather viewing the music as an animal that needed to be fed. And there is a big difference between feeding the music vs practicing guitar. I actually find it important for myself and my goals to practice the guitar, but I also think that it's really helpful to forget we play the guitar and just feed the monster... or play games with it... or get into fights with it... or fall in love with it.
Monsters need love too.
Reply With Quote
4 Micro Lessons, all under a minute, no talking.
Today, 05:16 PM in Theory