Do we really need jazz guitar licks?

[silverfoxx]

And here's what Sheryl calls the "Microcosmic Bebop Line". ("From the small to the all.") Another very good lick to know.

Mark,
are you familiar with Sheryl's
DVD Bebop Dojo & is it similar to
the 50 Bebop licks DVD ? eg is it
worth looking at both please ?

[MarkRhodes]

Licks can be seen as 'phraseological units' (from a language point of view).

From the 'product description' of Joseph Weidlich's book (-which I have) called "The Guitar Chord Shapes of Charlie Christian": >>>>Analyzing licks frequently used by Charlie Christian, Joe has identified a series of what he calls tetrafragments, i.e., the core element of a lick. The identifiable "sound" of a particular lick is preserved regardless of how many notes are added on either side of it, e.g., pickup notes or tag endings. <<<<<

It is an interesting approach. For one thing, you can alter the licks to suit the situation---how much or how little time you have to fill---and vary the rhythms (-To triplet or not to triplet, that is the question...) You can get a lot of mileage out of a few "tetrafragments".


Unfortunately, the examples on the accompanying CD are midi-generated, not played on a guitar, and the sound is stiff and tinny. That said, the book is worth working with.

The Guitar Chord Shapes of Charlie Christian - Kindle edition by Joe Weidlich, Charlie Christian. Arts & Photography Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

[fep]

Form me a lick is usually a practical realization of some concept.. so I can learn it but already during learning I split it mentally into motives and see what's behind it, what's making it interesting for me
And finally what I incorporate in my playing is not the exact lick but the concept used to make it...

This for me too.

The only licks* that stick with me are ones I write myself. But really they are just discoveries of new pathways for me. They morph over time, I might use just a piece or one; or I might extend it into something else; I might play something similar over a different chord relationship... etc.

I'd rather write licks and practice them as technical exercises than practicing scales or arps. At least the licks are my own creation and much more musical than practicing scales or arps (although they could always be analyzed in the context of scales, arps, chords).

* The word licks seems to be a dirty word. Would you feel better if I called them 'lines' or 'phrases' or 'vocabulary'.

[Jonah]

The word licks seems to be a dirty word.

But it shows the logics of jazz phrasing... it licks...


Besides jazz is dirty music)

[Jonah]

Licks can be seen as 'phraseological units' (from a language point of view).

I think semantical issue should be involved then...

I would rather call licks a possible ways of phrases for the context...

Like imagine there's a dialogie that is held by certain rules that all the participants know, they choose the topic, they know how to put questions, how to make answers.. but at the same time they are free within these limitations...

something like ancient greek dialogues, or medievial scolars' specualtion, or hebrew responsa...

So licks are also options to re-act with certain contexts... this makes them strictly connected with tradition...

and especially with oral tradition...

[MarkRhodes]

This for me too.The only licks* that stick with me are ones I write myself.

What about the licks in heads that you have learned? Lots of blues and bebop heads contain licks.

Most of us recognize the "Topsy" lick, the first phrase from Bird's famous "Now's The Time" solo, the "Cry Me A River" lick, not to mention THE Lick:

[Stevebol]

Did you have to play that video? I hate music now.

[Stevebol]

Actually the very last lick was the best. They figured let's write a whole song around it- Baby Come Back.

[joe2758]

[Sam Sherry]

"Licks" are a mechanism by which someone pastes noise into what would otherwise be a musical setting.

C'mon sam . . . do you really believe that? Are you saying the some of the licks created by master improvisors are just noise? Are they not music, when created by those masters? Are they not music to those of whom may have never heard those licks before, such as fans of jazz who aren't students or players of jazz? Do we only play jazz improvs for other jazz musicians who might be listening carefully to see if we are really improvising or just regurgitating a musical phrase that we might have taken in to the melting pot?

Anyone here who frowns upon the idea of learning licks and incorporating them into a true improvisation, please name me one highly respected jazz artist who doesn't quote while blowing.

Pat2 --

I don't like posting twice in the same thread but since you've called me out personally and since I respect you, here goes:

Yes. I really believe that. I really believe that improvisation is about reacting in the moment to the people who I am actually playing with at the moment. I really believe that improvisation is the fundamental characteristic of jazz. I really believe that anything which undercuts improvisation undercuts the fundamental characteristic of jazz. I really believe that inserting some pre-planned noise which originated in some other context undercuts improvisation. I really believe that is even more true when the noise someone is pasting in isn't even their own noise.

As you note, most players develop some personal vocabulary. I grant that the distinction between 'playing vocabulary which I seem to hear a lot' and 'pasting in some pre-planned noise' can get into a grey area. But I turn to the jazz critic Thomas Conrad for these wise words: “The quality of immediacy . . . originates, not from the assumption that the notes have never been played before, but from a sense that they have come into being, in real time, as urgent creative impulses.”

Urgency. Immediacy. Surprise. Improvisation. That's what I look for as a jazz musician and as a jazz listener. It's what I look for in the players I seek to play with. I'm not interested in spending time on or with players who are just going through the motions or striking "The Jazz Pose."

And finally this: It is never too early to play in the moment. If you can play a note you can play in the moment, if you let yourself. There is always time later to learn some hyper-kewel lick to paste in. The time to play in the moment is right now..

[Jehu]

I really believe that anything which undercuts improvisation undercuts the fundamental characteristic of jazz. I really believe that inserting some pre-planned noise which originated in some other context undercuts improvisation.

Blargery. Flirm! Spetzulatory glarnacticity. I can improvise all I want, but does it make sense if it doesn't reflect the idioms of the medium by which we are trying to communicate? Narfron.

[edh]

Sam, I here what you're saying, but you can't play what you don't know.

IMO, licks help you to here how the masters improvise. It gives you something to grab a hold off. Something to chew on.

Of course the goal is to be in the moment.

[setemupjoe]

When someone says "For goodness sake" or "what in the world..." Or any number of well worn phrases we are using "licks" within our speech patterns. We do this all the time unconsciously as well as consciously. This is normal for us to borrow and repeat speech patterns we hear. We do it to fit with certain societal cliques and because it helps define how we want to be seen by those around us. In music it's very similar. We borrow language from others we hear that is pleasing to us and reinterpret it to fit our own experience. People that do it awkwardly and without any style or grace make the practice seem "fake" but when employed well it is seen as a natural extension of your own style.

[setemupjoe]

When someone says "For goodness sake" or "what in the world..." Or any number of well worn phrases we are using "licks" within our speech patterns. We do this all the time unconsciously as well as consciously. This is normal for us to borrow and repeat speech patterns we hear. We do it to fit with certain societal cliques and because it helps define how we want to be seen by those around us.
In music it's very similar. We borrow language from others we hear that is pleasing to us and reinterpret it to fit our own experience. People that do it awkwardly and without any style or grace make the practice seem "fake" but when employed well it is seen as a natural extension of your own style.

[destinytot]

People that do it awkwardly and without any style or grace make the practice seem "fake" but when employed well it is seen as a natural extension of your own style.

Well said.

[JensL]

For me it was about writing licks, so I approached other peoples licks from that angle.

I didn't practice using them, I took them apart to figure out how to write my own. That always worked better for me and it is also how I encourage people to approach the lessons I make now (since they are full of licks that demonstrate how the topic of the lesson can be applied)

I did however learn a lot of solos from cd's and spent time playing them, but that was more about timing and phrasing.

Jens

[MarkRhodes]

My sense is that some focus more on their own identity---this is MINE---while others focus more on the music---this is JAZZ.

It seems odd to me that one might want to play jazz but not use conventional jazz idioms. In the same way, it would seem odd to me that one might want to play rock or funk or blues but not play anything that rock or funk of blues players normally played. If you're not doing any of that, in what sense are you playing in those styles? Further, why would you want to?

In a way this is like saying I want to adopt a British accent but I don't want to sound like anyone who actually has one. Well, other that sounding British, what does it mean to adopt a (particular) British accent? Other than using jazz phrases, idioms, and the like---ii-Vs, turnarounds, quotes, riffs, and so on---what does it mean to play jazz? (If you just want to play your own things----and that's fine; I play my own things---why call that jazz? If it's all you, it's not jazz.

[JensL]

My sense is that some focus more on their own identity---this is MINE---while others focus more on the music---this is JAZZ.

It seems odd to me that one might want to play jazz but not use conventional jazz idioms. In the same way, it would seem odd to me that one might want to play rock or funk or blues but not play anything that rock or funk of blues players normally played. If you're not doing any of that, in what sense are you playing in those styles? Further, why would you want to?

In a way this is like saying I want to adopt a British accent but I don't want to sound like anyone who actually has one. Well, other that sounding British, what does it mean to adopt a (particular) British accent? Other than using jazz phrases, idioms, and the like---ii-Vs, turnarounds, quotes, riffs, and so on---what does it mean to play jazz? (If you just want to play your own things----and that's fine; I play my own things---why call that jazz? If it's all you, it's not jazz.

I think I know people who would say the exact opposite of your last statement. It really depends as much on how you define jazz

I don't think you can say that a solo has to include at least 10% bebop licks to be jazz, that is not true even for a lot of jazz icons IMO. I don't think Wayne Shorters solo on speak no evil would qualify or Miles on So What?

To go on with the your British accent analogy, having a British accent does not mean only speaking in English expressions, it is about how you say the words, not which words you're saying.

Jens

[Irez87]

I hope this doesn't spark a what is jazz thread... that would be endless. Is Robert Glasper's playing "jazz", or Oz Noy? Is Roy Hargrove a "jazz" musician? They play the "idiom", but there is also more... and they become "current". Aw hell, this is eating into my practice time...

[mrcee]

There was some discussion on another thread, Approach to Improvisation, about c.e.s.h/line cliches. Aren't these
"licks" and are by definition cliches. Nothing wrong with an occasional cliche. IMO

[pamosmusic]

My sense is that some focus more on their own identity---this is MINE---while others focus more on the music---this is JAZZ.

It seems odd to me that one might want to play jazz but not use conventional jazz idioms. In the same way, it would seem odd to me that one might want to play rock or funk or blues but not play anything that rock or funk of blues players normally played. If you're not doing any of that, in what sense are you playing in those styles? Further, why would you want to?

In a way this is like saying I want to adopt a British accent but I don't want to sound like anyone who actually has one. Well, other that sounding British, what does it mean to adopt a (particular) British accent? Other than using jazz phrases, idioms, and the like---ii-Vs, turnarounds, quotes, riffs, and so on---what does it mean to play jazz? (If you just want to play your own things----and that's fine; I play my own things---why call that jazz? If it's all you, it's not jazz.

Coltrane was apparently very deliberate in avoiding the cliches of the bebop language. Then along came David Baker to turn coltranes language into a series of digital patterns and "matrices" ... A touch ironic

[pamosmusic]

When someone says "For goodness sake" or "what in the world..." Or any number of well worn phrases we are using "licks" within our speech patterns. We do this all the time unconsciously as well as consciously. This is normal for us to borrow and repeat speech patterns we hear. We do it to fit with certain societal cliques and because it helps define how we want to be seen by those around us.
In music it's very similar. We borrow language from others we hear that is pleasing to us and reinterpret it to fit our own experience. People that do it awkwardly and without any style or grace make the practice seem "fake" but when employed well it is seen as a natural extension of your own style.

George Orwells "Politics and English Language" might be useful in extending this analogy. He HATES what he thinks are empty and automatic phrases that are overused to the point of being essentially devoid of any real meaning. Filler.

[MarkRhodes]

I think I know people who would say the exact opposite of your last statement. It really depends as much on how you define jazz

I don't think you can say that a solo has to include at least 10% bebop licks to be jazz, that is not true even for a lot of jazz icons IMO. I don't think Wayne Shorters solo on speak no evil would qualify or Miles on So What?

To go on with the your British accent analogy, having a British accent does not mean only speaking in English expressions, it is about how you say the words, not which words you're saying.

Jens

I agree that others define jazz differently. I'm fine with that. I won't get into arguments about whether "X" is jazz or not. I don't care about other people's definitions of jazz. (I don't even care about my own definition of jazz----I don't have one.) But I will say that when I say "I want to learn to play jazz" it was like when I said earlier "I want to learn to play Delta blues" (or rock'n'roll) or what have you. The music was already there, outside me. I didn't invent it. I always wrote my own songs---well, since the third grade--but those are just that, my own songs. They're not jazz.

[Shadow of the Sun]

I agree that others define jazz differently. I'm fine with that. I won't get into arguments about whether "X" is jazz or not. I don't care about other people's definitions of jazz. (I don't even care about my own definition of jazz----I don't have one.) But I will say that when I say "I want to learn to play jazz" it was like when I said earlier "I want to learn to play Delta blues" (or rock'n'roll) or what have you. The music was already there, outside me. I didn't invent it. I always wrote my own songs---well, since the third grade--but those are just that, my own songs. They're not jazz.

I don't have anything to specifically contribute to this discussion, but I'd like to say that I laud that viewpoint, MarkRhodes, and that I feel honoured and privileged to be able to "pick your brain" with regards to music and guitar technique.

[MarkRhodes]

George Orwells "Politics and English Language" might be useful in extending this analogy. He HATES what he thinks are empty and automatic phrases that are overused to the point of being essentially devoid of any real meaning. Filler.

That is true of Orwell's essay but it is a poor analogy for instrumental music, which asserts nothing. It conveys feeling but makes no claims. (Imagine someone trying to translate Orwell's essay into a tenor saxophone solo.)