The different needs of the listener and the performer in improvised jazz?

[dimrun]

I was watching a interview with Jimmy Raney on Youtube and he said that he was amazed that a great composer, such as Beethoven, could produce a great piece of music that was beautifully constructed and made perfect harmonic and melodic sense by the “writing and rewrting” approach, rather than improvising on the spot like a jazz musician.
Well, in theory at least, I would have thought that the “writing and rewriting” method should produce the best piece of art.
I would think that on most areas of “art” the working and reworking approach is by far the most common.
Didn’t Shakespeare write and rewrite his plays? Didn’t Yeats write and rewrite his poems. Didn’t Da Vinci. for example, do premlim sketches for the Mona Lisa.
And, in music, didn’t Gershwin write and rewrite Summertime.
So, how come, in jazz we expert - indeed, want - our heroes to produce great works of art “on the spot”.
Couldn’t a better solo be produced by the “working and reworking” method.
Of course, such an approach would not - one would imagine - satisfy the player, but what about the listener?

[dimrun]

I've just realised that the thread below this one is covering the same ground.
Great minds and all that...

[Hep To The Jive]

It depends on the listener too. Improvisation is a lot about improviser taking chances and creating great (hopefully) ideas on the spot that could never be recreated exactly and the listener present in that very moment as it happens. It's a thrilling experience, if you like that kinda of thing. I like a finished composition too, it's just different experiences. To be honest, as a listener, I would enjoy Beethoven more in my home listening to CD or something, I'd be bored much to go to a concert hall. With jazz, or even a good rock band, live is where I get the most entertainment. I like the thrill of a great performer taking chances. More often than not, its rewarding.

Btw that other thread doesnt seem to be by a great mind at all, I better hang here

[dimrun]

Interestingly, it is thought that Beethoven and Liszt, for example did improvise the major parts of their piano music.
But, of course, they did allow themselves the time to revisit those first efforts and tidy them up.
Btw, do jazz fans think that they can tell when a player is improvising or simply playing a piece of " prepared" music?

[pushkar000]

You can get glimpses of the though processes of improvisers with their phrases, what they are thinking or feeling or trying to do. You can feel when the band is really cooking.

[fumblefingers]

Improvisation has a spontaneity to it that pre-composed music doesn't have - at least to the same degree. If done well it can be exhilarating for listener and player alike. It doesn't always come out perfectly so when it does you know you've really witnessed something. Some people don't have the patience for that, but true jazz fans do.

To witness a great improvised performance is to witness the creative process itself, you might say.

[dimrun]

Talking about improvisation, Fumblefingers said:
"If done well it can be exhilarating for listener and player alike. It doesn't always come out perfectly so when it does you know you've really witnessed something"

The problem there is that, if done well, a "prepared" improvisation would have the same effect on the listener!

As I hinted previously, I don't think the listener can tell if a piece is truly improvised or "prepared".

[Bill C]

I don't think the listener can tell if a piece is truly improvised or "prepared".

a good improviser - in a group setting - will be constantly reacting to what the other musicians are playing

[fumblefingers]

Talking about improvisation, Fumblefingers said:
"If done well it can be exhilarating for listener and player alike. It doesn't always come out perfectly so when it does you know you've really witnessed something"

The problem there is that, if done well, a "prepared" improvisation would have the same effect on the listener!

As I hinted previously, I don't think the listener can tell if a piece is truly improvised or "prepared".

A piece? You mean a solo?

Anyway, there's some truth to that. But it can depend on the listener. It depends on a number of things actually. Are we talking about riff based soloing or short solos on very tidy smooth jazz songs? Or are we talking about extended solos with a lot of freedom? (I had live performance in mind primarily, although not exclusively in my above post)

sitting in the front row or fairly close, I think one can get a very good idea of what's happening. I know I can. Seeing the same act two nights in a row kinda seals it too.

[dimrun]

fumblefingers said:
"Seeing the same act two nights in a row kinda seals it too."

Yes, I'm pretty sure you would need to do that i.e. see an improvisor on a number of occasions to be certain that their performance wasn't planned.

[jasonc]

Playing the same tunes for years and years could probably be thought of the writing and rewriting.

[Irez87]

Troy Grady's idea of improvisation rubbed me the wrong way... I am all about feeling the group sound when I try to improvise (sometimes I sound pretty good, sometimes I wanna rewind and tell myself "lay out, dude!) That's why I love listening and playing jazz, that communication is indescribable. Maybe there's a fancy German or French word for the interplay that I speak of, I dunno.

But the idea of the listener verse the player, great idea for a thread. For me, I like a solo that

1. takes bits and pieces from what the previous soloist did

2. takes bits, pieces, and cues from the rhythm section (you are playing in a band, right?)

3. uses the entire instrument, low and high registers

4. Has that Vincent Herrring Cannonball swing feel (triplets be damned, it's much much more 'an that)

5. has a sense of melodic development

6. references the melody in some way, shape or form

7. Has a touch of the blues, but doesn't over do it. Barry says playing blues licks should be thought of as swear words. They spice up the conversation and make shit real. But, too much and it sounds dirty. But then again, sometimes I wanna hear something dirty in a solo...

[Irez87]

Oh, and I am not ashamed to say that I still love Miles Davis when he solo's. Even to the untrained ear, it sounds beautiful. I've been studying phrasing a lot and I thought, oh Miles just plays floaty nice notes. Nope, not at all. He plays phrases too, and let's add this to the list HE KNOWS HOW TO USE SPACE AS A MELODIC DEVICE. Sorry, had to get that out, but the space between the notes is just as important as the notes themselves. I used to hear that as a cliche, now I hear that as gospel.

[Irez87]

And before anyone says elsewise, I'll say one last thing. Yes, fast lines sound great. But they sound good because of the time feel, the space, the note choice, the development... they don't sound good just because they are played fast. I hear a lot of people knock speed because they can't play fast themselves. It takes skill to play fast, but it takes a whole 'nother level of musicality to say something worthwhile when playing fast. Coltrane sounded good because he had great musical control, not because he "played fast".

[fumblefingers]

fumblefingers said:
"Seeing the same act two nights in a row kinda seals it too."

Yes, I'm pretty sure you would need to do that i.e. see an improvisor on a number of occasions to be certain that their performance wasn't planned.

through long experience, i'm certain that you don't.

seeing them two nights in a row, or on the same tour, certainly reveals the proof beyond a doubt, but that doesn't mean it's necessary.


haven't you ever watched a jazz man up close? haven't you seen them pause, close their eyes, shift around a little bit, etc. while working out their solo? haven't you ever witnessed a player make a phrase come out a certain way, then work out a consequent phrase?

one doesn't have to be a mind reader to see what's happening. this is beginning to be as absurd as the other thread.

[Bill C]

Oh, and I am not ashamed to say that I still love Miles Davis when he solo's. Even to the untrained ear, it sounds beautiful. I've been studying phrasing a lot and I thought, oh Miles just plays floaty nice notes. Nope, not at all. He plays phrases too, and let's add this to the list HE KNOWS HOW TO USE SPACE AS A MELODIC DEVICE. Sorry, had to get that out, but the space between the notes is just as important as the notes themselves. I used to hear that as a cliche, now I hear that as gospel.

I agree - I transcribed a chorus or two of Miles and was amazed by the displacement of phrases vs the 4/4

[dimrun]

fumblefingers, guess what, Dave Brubeck disagrees with you!
But, then again, what does he know!

[fumblefingers]

Given that you are not he, can you expand a little? What precisely did Brubeck say?

[dimrun]

Dave Brubeck tells the story of being told that there was a very interesting new jazz piano player in town.
Dave checks the player out, and is very impressed, and goes around singing the player's praises.
Then, Dave, gets the chance to see the piano player again shortly after the first time, where upon he realises that the player is in fact performing"prepared" improvisations.

Now, if Dave Brubeck was fooled, I would suggest almost anybody could be fooled.

Also, saxophonist Lee Konitz says that lots of jazz musician play minimum improvised material.

[dingusmingus]

Barry says playing blues licks should be thought of as swear words. They spice up the conversation and make shit real. But, too much and it sounds dirty....

What a perfect metaphor. I've never heard that one before.

[fumblefingers]

well it depends, like i said.

so Dave said that one can't always tell, huh? sure, I agree. and - it depends - for example on the type of playing and tune, as i said before.

if you are talking about an unknown player, playing short, melodic solos you may not know. maybe.

if you are talking about a known player, playing long, complex, fast solos, you probably can tell.


to Konitz' alleged statement. was he saying that Brubeck didn't improvise much? or that he (Konitz) didn't improvise much? (or Bird, Trane, Sony, Miles, Bags, Wes, etc.)

makes you wonder.

[Cunamara]

Jazz musicians prep their solos. It's called "practice." We learn our scales, modes, arpeggios. We cop licks from other musicians when we hear something we like. All of those things crop up in our solos. Few if any of us play something totally improvised- just as most people recycle phrases in their conversations and retell stories in pretty similar ways. The same happens with jazz musicians.

That audience wants the experience of hearing great music. Most don't care if it is improvised- indeed, they often want it not to be. People go to hear Jimmy Page play "Stairway to Heaven," most of them want to hear that solo again. People going to classical music concerts have no expectation of improvisation at all (nowadays; in the past, classical musicians would improvise on themes and many of the great composers- J.S. Bach, for example- were reknowned for their improvisational skills).

[fumblefingers]

Few if any of us play something totally improvised- just as most people recycle phrases in their conversations and retell stories in pretty similar ways. The same happens with jazz musicians.

It depends on one's definition of improvisation or what passes the test for "total improvisation".

for example, improv comedy or improv acting doesn't require that the performers invent new words or even phrases. it just means that they ad lib.

i think that there's a difference between playing a fully memorized solo (not improv) and ad libbing with your vocab (ideas, licks, phrases, steps and skips) into a coherent solo (yes improv).

purely inspired, on the spot, wholly new ideas are exciting of course - but only if they sound good. if they don't sound good, they aren't good. what sane player would demand of himself that very note he played fell into this category?

[Irez87]

Oh god, the improvisation is a myth debate. Yes, great improvisers have their pet licks and phrases. But they put them together differently, start them differently, end them differently, start on different parts of the measure (rhythm, what a concept), all dependent on context.

For instance, listen to Paul Desmond with Brubeck and then listen to him with Jim Hall. Similar licks, but a different melodic feel. Brubeck plays those dense (but oh so juicy) chords, while Jim Hall plays what I will call a "string duet or string trio" when he comps. That sets up the soloist differently for different melodic material.

Jerry Bergonzi has said that even the inversion of the chord sets him up for different melodic material when he solos. That's something to think about when we comp behind a good soloist.

The reason this frustrates the heck out of me is because jazz is communication, creating as a group, it's not just play what's on the page. Classical musicians have to know group strategy as well, like how to blend, how to phrase, dynamics, etc.

Once you say everything is prepared and done by rote, then you totally subtract the human element from the music. If this is the case, then let the robots and computers take jazz from us. Cue the smart alleck who posts the youtube clip of the robot playing the trumpet...

[md54]

Martin Taylor...Martin Taylor.....Martin Taylor.....Martin Taylor....Martin Taylor......Martin Taylor.

I completely understand what the OP is getting at. Expressed much more diplomatically than me though.

OK jazz police. Get going.