On-the-spot Jazz Guitar Improvisers?

[Klatu]

I only saw Sonny Rollins once, and unfortunately I don't think he was feeling inspired that night (this was sometime in the late 1980s I think). Twenty minutes of him worrying away at the same phrase on 'St. Thomas' became almost unbearable.

Whilst I admire Sonny immensely, I suspect that is the downside of being a 'pure' improviser.

I remember reading an interview with his wife where she essentially agrees with you in that when Sonny was on, he was spectacular, but when he was off, he could sound pedestrian.

I was fortunate to have seen him twice in the 90's, and he was in fine form on both occasions. The only element of the performances that I would have changed would have been the electric bass player. Fine as he was, the electric bass didn't quite fit with my preferred timbre.

[Groyniad]

for me the idea of improvising - of 'making-it-up-as-you-go-along' - is the guiding principle of everything. so the aim is always to learn to do it (whatever that is) on-the-hoof, in-the-spur-of-the-moment etc. etc.

to say its the guiding principle of everything is precisely not to say that i manage it very often, or that anyone else does either.

there's (very often) an exuberance, among other things, about an improvised phrase that is (very often) lacking from a learned one - and that makes it musically valuable. its worth noting too that it makes it personally valuable at the same time. - because its exuberance! and that's seriously nice stuff. that's why the music is so addictive both as listener and as player

none of this bears on the question of how often even the greats actually improvise

if you maintain a narrow notion of improvisation then maybe its not many

if you're more relaxed about what improvisation means then maybe its all of them

just because you've played a phrase before doesn't mean you aren't improvising if you use it. think of talking. i've often used the phrase 'the bus is late again' - but that doesn't mean, on any given occasion, that i wasn't, on that occasion, making it all up as i went along (as opposed e.g. to speaking learned lines as in a play).

if you want to speak on a given topic with maximum fluency and without notes you need to know what you're going to talk about inside-out. getting to know it inside-out will involve learning to use, not just a distinctive vocabulary, but all manner of phrases etc. so many of the phrases you use when you speak fluently on the topic will be phrases you've used before.

if you tried to speak on an interesting topic you'd never considered for a moment there would be no danger of you repeating yourself - but there would be little danger of you managing to speak fluently for any period of time either.

[princeplanet]

Many point to Sonny Rollins as being one of the best pure improvisers in jazz.

This was my conclusion also. Disregarding the claims that Sonny live is where it's at, I say that his recording output from mid 50's to early 60's alone gives the Jazz world it's high water mark for spontaneous improvisation.

It is freakish to the point where, not only do we fail to understand how it happens, but Sonny doesn't understand it either!

[princeplanet]

for me the idea of improvising - of 'making-it-up-as-you-go-along' - is the guiding principle of everything. so the aim is always to learn to do it (whatever that is) on-the-hoof, in-the-spur-of-the-moment etc. etc.

to say its the guiding principle of everything is precisely not to say that i manage it very often, or that anyone else does either.

there's (very often) an exuberance, among other things, about an improvised phrase that is (very often) lacking from a learned one - and that makes it musically valuable. its worth noting too that it makes it personally valuable at the same time. - because its exuberance! and that's seriously nice stuff. that's why the music is so addictive both as listener and as player

none of this bears on the question of how often even the greats actually improvise

if you maintain a narrow notion of improvisation then maybe its not many

if you're more relaxed about what improvisation means then maybe its all of them

just because you've played a phrase before doesn't mean you aren't improvising if you use it. think of talking. i've often used the phrase 'the bus is late again' - but that doesn't mean, on any given occasion, that i wasn't, on that occasion, making it all up as i went along (as opposed e.g. to speaking learned lines as in a play).

if you want to speak on a given topic with maximum fluency and without notes you need to know what you're going to talk about inside-out. getting to know it inside-out will involve learning to use, not just a distinctive vocabulary, but all manner of phrases etc. so many of the phrases you use when you speak fluently on the topic will be phrases you've used before.

if you tried to speak on an interesting topic you'd never considered for a moment there would be no danger of you repeating yourself - but there would be little danger of you managing to speak fluently for any period of time either.

Yes. Now here's me improvising what I'm writing using words I already know and have used, I know it's improvising because I'm making it up as I write, and I've never written it before. There, you just read it, it was me improvising the way I improvise in Jazz, ie, I use words on the fly that I already know. And now, here's me improvising using words I've never used before: hhgrrg pojlk sdsdhg ihvbjhg h hh hfehh uupinxvvc hghbshqi ligv izsf j i oidf .....

You can make up your own mind if one kind of improvisation was more useful or interesting (me , I like the second one, but then, as Chuck Barris used to say, I like warts....).

[Irez87]

Can I join in again... test the waters... they feel hot... but not too bubbly...

If I play the same phrases all the time, then what the heck is the point of playing with a band. If I play the same phrases all the time in the same places, what the heck is the point of me playing my guitar. Why not record my solo, and press play when they want me to solo.

Mistakes are hard to swallow, but mistakes make the music human. I like the new music we're getting into where genre is blended out of existence. But if I play with a band where everyone is playing an "acoustic" instrument than I want to play to that situation and respond to that sonic atmosphere. Just like princeplanet said (why does that name remind me of Space Ghost... Coast to Coast) I can use phrases I know, but I will rearrange them, alter them, chop them up, flip them on their head, to play different.

Yes I will even apply this to classical music, with more subtly. I don't care what the markings say, I want to hear the melodic phrase breath a little differently each time. I wanna hear cadenza's that are held longer, shorter. I want to hear dynamic markings played with gusto and drama, as well as with a whisper. I wanna hear the tempo breath in and out like the whole orchestra is a human being.

Same for rock, rap, country, name a genre... Polka. I want to hear the human element. Otherwise, let's burn our guitars and hand the reins over to Apple and Co.

Let's ground this post in a real example...

Currently I am forcing myself out of the habit of playing "traditional comps". What does that mean? That means I am forcing myself to close the Real Book even if I don't know the tune. It also means not depending on a lot of traditional drop 2 voicings for all my comps. I know they work, but that's against the concept here. I am forcing myself to play harmony by just listening to the bass player and the vibe player, as well as the soloist. Would I recommend being as tenacious as this...?

Um... you gotta know the people you are playing with, or you gotta be strong enough to face the angry stares afterwards. It's extremely selfish and selfless on my part because if I screw up harmony, it's worse than screwing up a line in your own solo. I've been severely chewed out on stage by horn players in the past for approaching accompaniment this way in past when I first started this approach. But if I never tried it, I would never get better at this skill.

So why the heck would I do this? I want to keep the music exciting. I want to keep the music fresh. I want to engage in a musical conversation. I want to be brave enough to take the risk. Do I sometimes chicken out and resort to traditional comps that I know will work still? Yes, but I knock myself for doing that afterwards. How can I learn something new if I always play the same way? This is why I ear train like a mf'er...

[gnatola]

Yes. Now here's me improvising what I'm writing using words I already know and have used, I know it's improvising because I'm making it up as I write, and I've never written it before. There, you just read it, it was me improvising the way I improvise in Jazz, ie, I use words on the fly that I already know. And now, here's me improvising using words I've never used before: hhgrrg pojlk sdsdhg ihvbjhg h hh hfehh uupinxvvc hghbshqi ligv izsf j i oidf .....

You can make up your own mind if one kind of improvisation was more useful or interesting (me , I like the second one, but then, as Chuck Barris used to say, I like warts....).

HAHAHA!!! I always love PP's responses to this subject. I couldn't agree more. You guys imbue these musicians with other - worldly powers. These musicians, even the great ones, are playing what they know. They worked at their craft with incredible dedication and would probably be pissed off that anyone thought it just came to them out of the ether.

An excerpt from an article in Guitar Player magazine, written by Carl Verheyan:
Many years ago I read an article in Keyboard magazine by Chick Corea. He stated that the best of us are only truly improvising 30 percent of the time, and that the rest of the time we’re playing stuff we know, things we’ve worked out. I took this concept to heart and began to work out as much harmonic material as I could. I filled many notebooks with lines for major, minor, and dominant chords and learned to connect them in every key all over the guitar. John McLaughlin, another one of my heroes, says that on a good night we play the things we know until we’re warmed up enough physically and mentally to play the things we don’t know.

Listen to Joe Diorio beginning at 39:39. It ain't magic. It's hard work. Sorry I don't know how to embed a video here.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6r_IMA5hsRE

[Peter Alton]

Back to my 1967 Berlin Jazztage programme.....was this the ultimate improvisers night ?

[GuitarGerry]

Yes. Now here's me improvising what I'm writing using words I already know and have used, I know it's improvising because I'm making it up as I write, and I've never written it before. There, you just read it, it was me improvising the way I improvise in Jazz, ie, I use words on the fly that I already know. And now, here's me improvising using words I've never used before: hhgrrg pojlk sdsdhg ihvbjhg h hh hfehh uupinxvvc hghbshqi ligv izsf j i oidf .....

You can make up your own mind if one kind of improvisation was more useful or interesting (me , I like the second one, but then, as Chuck Barris used to say, I like warts....).

Shakespeare introduced a huge number of words to the English language. We take them for granted nowadays, but they were totally original at the time. Yet his novel words made sense to his audience (context is everything).

Arguably, there's a subtle difference between being inventive and being innovative. Most jazz musicians fall into the former category IMO. Those in the latter are usually outsiders with a small audience. Your analogy demonstrates both approaches.

I've heard many improvisers explain how they mostly improvise with what they already know, yet there are still moments where they genuinely come up with something new. That's my experience. However, playing around with stuff you know isn't just rattling off licks. Take a stock phrase and play around with it. You can alter it rhythmically, repeat notes, add or subtract notes...that's what I consider to be improvising with what you know...that's what makes language intelligent when we talk: obeying the basics rules of grammar, but being inventive.

[Irez87]

Let's promise not to belittle here. I have to check myself as well.

I equate improvisation to freestyle rap or freestyle beat poetry ala Nuyorican Cafe. The form is memorized, the idea is internalized. But the words and flow might be improvised. This is the basis to story telling. Playing music is NOT playing the changes. Playing music is playing the MUSIC. Dig:

I think I may have cemented a partnership between me playing music and the poetry workshop that comes to our school. Time to get my bass chops back up... blood blisters here I come

This poem is quite famous and infamous (explicit, but it is required to tell the story):

Tyler Perry... he kinda commercialized it too much, I thought the aforementioned video captured
For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow Is Enuf

http://www.amazon.com/Colored-Girls-.../dp/0684843269

Yes, we have heard those words before. But have we heard them strung together like that before? With that power?

[goldenwave77]

This was my conclusion also. Disregarding the claims that Sonny live is where it's at, I say that his recording output from mid 50's to early 60's alone gives the Jazz world it's high water mark for spontaneous improvisation.

It is freakish to the point where, not only do we fail to understand how it happens, but Sonny doesn't understand it either!

Need to be careful here....just because somebody can't VERBALIZE what they're doing doesn't mean they don't understand what they're doing. I think Gunther Schuller or somebody did a long, written analysis of Rollins' playing on Saxophone Colossus and afterward Rollins looked at it and said something like "Oh I guess that's what I was doing..."

It can be like playing chess. When training to improve my chess strength, I spent a fair bit of time using Russian chess software---mostly graded problems....at first, you couldn't see anything, then you started to see things...then an interesting thing would happen...you would look and look, and you could "sense" something without being able to describe it exactly....often your intuition was rewarded....you knew something was there but couldn't verbalize it.

(Also, you learned to not reject stuff out of hand...Tal, former world champion and a tactical genius was asked how he looked at moves....he said, famously, "I look to see if I can sacrifice my Queen, if that is not possible, then a rook sacrifice might work, then a bishop and a knight, and so forth...and last, I look to sacrifice a pawn....the last is always the most difficult decision." Tal was being facetious, but was also serious...in chess it is called "cultivating the imagination" and great players have the gift for making the outrageous, or bizarre move, that "violates" the "rules of chess"---really maxims of general, but not inevitable application. In chess, the only things that are always true are the basic rules of how the pieces move....pretty much everything else is "up for grabs"---at least in theory...in music this is even more true, context is everything.)

[Groyniad]

This was my conclusion also. Disregarding the claims that Sonny live is where it's at, I say that his recording output from mid 50's to early 60's alone gives the Jazz world it's high water mark for spontaneous improvisation.

It is freakish to the point where, not only do we fail to understand how it happens, but Sonny doesn't understand it either!

i find his playing in this period utterly compelling. only bird gives more pure joy per bar - i believe.

[princeplanet]

Back to my 1967 Berlin Jazztage programme.....was this the ultimate improvisers night ?

Holy Moly! - more stars there that night than there were in the Berlin sky!

[Irez87]

Question. How do I do this, if it is all thought out and improvisation is myth:

Not showing off, just proving a point.

Is it brilliant, no. Is it novel material compared to what I would play on my own, yes!

Check the 1:50 mark to hear the interplay...

Once again, this why I ear train like a madman.

[GuitarGerry]

Just playing Devil's advocate, but is being a true improviser something to aspire to? Perhaps it's better to have the balance tipped towards improvising with what you know?

I once saw Alan Holdsworth play to an audience of around 40 people, and a percentage of them were there to see the support act. I'd say that Holdsworth is a genuine improviser. I didn't hear anything approaching a lick the whole night. Perhaps he did play regular (for him) patterns, but there was certainly no obvious repetition; and perhaps that's one of the reasons why he's relatively obscure? As much as I admire him to sticking to his guns, I didn't warm to his music. There simply weren't any reference points for me. He is a genuine innovator. Around that time I also saw Ornette. Despite all the hoo-ha surrounding his playing (admittedly more during the early part of his career), what he played sounded more like Jazz to my ears. There were reference points in terms of phrasing, rhythm and melody, therefore you could hear a continuation of tradition (hardly surprising considering he was renowned for his Bird impression). Which is probably why the theatre was packed out. Ornette was also a true improviser, but that nod to tradition kept audiences coming back.

All about balance I suppose...

[Irez87]

Excellent point, but here's the rub.

Improvisation should be a little predictable

Why?

Because you are not freely improvising

You are improvising over the framework of a tune.

Your phrases should pay some type of homage to the original melody, at least in the cadential thought.

You can spot the difference between an average musician and an expert by HOW they improvise. Does the improvisation sound like it could be a stand alone piece? Does it contain movement? Drama? Contour? Punctuation? Breath? Story line? The three c's? Conflict, Choice, Consequence?

As an improviser, you need to be conscious of these macro elements as well. And when you reach that higher plane, yes, you can improvise these things. Improvising this way is only a myth to those that don't have the knowledge to think that it is possible. That is the most belittling I will ever be on this forum, because I hate doing that. But I gotta call it like I see it. That's why I get frustrated by people saying "but you have to play the changes".

Music is more than outlining chord changes, peeps. I call it like it is. Not saying I can do the aforementioned, but I know that my goals are much larger than "play over the changes"

[christianm77]

Actually, if we were to believe what Lee Konitz said in a recent interview, he believes that most of the better known players of today are so concerned with sounding technically impressive, that very few of them are really improvising.

Rather than a commercial pressure to play the same solo that was on the record, as mentioned in a previous post, he believes players are bending to another pressure; the pressure to work their solos out beforehand, so they sound technically fluent, and don't play any clinkers.

So in answer to the OP, Lee Konitz would be one example of an 'on-the-spot improvisers.

That's a really interesting point. As a player, I sometimes feel under pressure to deliver 'technically impressive' especially when playing gypsy jazz or fusion.

I often feel that players that are highly appreciated are the technicians at the expense of the ones that can really improvise or really swing... But maybe that's just me and my own baggage!

For me, I make loads of mistakes, but I'd rather that than become someone who plays the same solo every night. I hate it when I go too much into canned material, licks and so on.

[christianm77]

Just playing Devil's advocate, but is being a true improviser something to aspire to? Perhaps it's better to have the balance tipped towards improvising with what you know?

I once saw Alan Holdsworth play to an audience of around 40 people, and a percentage of them were there to see the support act. I'd say that Holdsworth is a genuine improviser. I didn't hear anything approaching a lick the whole night. Perhaps he did play regular (for him) patterns, but there was certainly no obvious repetition; and perhaps that's one of the reasons why he's relatively obscure? As much as I admire him to sticking to his guns, I didn't warm to his music. There simply weren't any reference points for me. He is a genuine innovator. Around that time I also saw Ornette. Despite all the hoo-ha surrounding his playing (admittedly more during the early part of his career), what he played sounded more like Jazz to my ears. There were reference points in terms of phrasing, rhythm and melody, therefore you could hear a continuation of tradition (hardly surprising considering he was renowned for his Bird impression). Which is probably why the theatre was packed out. Ornette was also a true improviser, but that nod to tradition kept audiences coming back.

All about balance I suppose...

Holdsworth maybe the only guitarist who can absolutely improvise at that speed... I suppose there are a few others that come close, but I've always had the impression that Allan's brain just runs at that speed. It's very honest playing, that's what makes it so amazing.

That said, I can't say I listen to him that much, not really my bag.

In terms of repetition, it's an essential part of composition. The classical tradition is the development of varied repetition after all, sequences, imitative counterpoint, sonata form etc.

In jazz we have the riff, but it's interesting that when we get into bop the repetition is much more difficult to catch than in swing. Take the example of Now's the Time - a subverted riff tune through to things like Donna Lee, where there are definite motifs, but they are hard to catch.

Ho many people make a conscious effort to include repetition and development of the melody? listening to Schubert the other day (a theme/variations form piece) I was struck by how much repetition there was. It all creates structure to the listener.

[princeplanet]

Question. How do I do this, if it is all thought out and improvisation is myth:

Not showing off, just proving a point.

Is it brilliant, no. Is it novel material compared to what I would play on my own, yes!

Check the 1:50 mark to hear the interplay...

Once again, this why I ear train like a madman.

Well yes, it does sound like you're following your ear, and some will say that if it can be done in slow motion, it can be done at breakneck speed with the right amount of practice. Personally I like faster and longer lines occasionally and I cannot imagine myself playing 8ths at 300 bpm and making much musical sense if I did not stitch together prefab "words". Your point would be proven better if you could respond to a challenge of playing a totally made up group of 15 -20 notes every 2 secs against chords that randomly change as quickly- and make it sound great all the time. (Think Wayne Shorter or Eric Dolphy...)

You have to be born "special" to do this. If you're "normal" like the rest of us, I seriously doubt that even 10 hours of ear training per day for 10 years will get you close. Some of that time might be put to better use learning vocab, patterns etc, and then learning how to manipulate them to cover all the situations you expect to encounter.

[christianm77]

Well yes, it does sound like you're following your ear, and some will say that if it can be done in slow motion, it can be done at breakneck speed with the right amount of practice. Personally I like faster and longer lines occasionally and I cannot imagine myself playing 8ths at 300 bpm and making much musical sense if I did not stitch together prefab "words". Your point would be proven better if you could respond to a challenge of playing a totally made up group of 15 -20 notes every 2 secs against chords that randomly change as quickly- and make it sound great all the time. (Think Wayne Shorter or Eric Dolphy...)

You have to be born "special" to do this. If you're "normal" like the rest of us, I seriously doubt that even 10 hours of ear training per day for 10 years will get you close. Some of that time might be put to better use learning vocab, patterns etc, and then learning how to manipulate them to cover all the situations you expect to encounter.

Honest question (that is one I haven't decided I know the answer to!) do you think by training to improvise by ear slowly (ala Warne Marsh) it is possible to learn to improvise at fast tempos? Or do you see fast tempos/double time as a totally different discipline?

[Irez87]

princeplanet... I teach Special Education, that includes gifted and talented as well.

There is a degree of certain people having a wiring in their brain that enables more efficient, of more novel thought....

But, just like anyone can be taught to write a well structured essay to express an argument

Anyone can be taught to use their ear at the level of Wayne Shorter and John Coltrane. It just takes a lot of time. A LOT of time. So you have to sacrifice other areas of your practice, life, and sanity (hopefully not, hehe) to achieve that goal.

Chris '77, excellent question.

I asked Bruce that exact question during my last lesson. I was talking about bright bebop and he said, yuuppe it's possible.

Remember how I said that I want to learn how to hear faster, and in larger chunks? This is the process I am using to play bright tunes as well. How does it work? Come on over to the ear training thread and I'll show you. I don't wanna hog the thread, especially when a lot of people on the forum are still skeptical. I understand that, it's "new" (even though it's not) it's controversial (even though it's not) and it's different than how improvisation is usually taught (it is). I don't brag about my playing. I brag about having the opportunity to study with Bruce Arnold and many other brilliant voices in music. Forget jazz for a sec, in MUSIC.

I just wanted to prove that improvisation exists in the jazz tradition and negating that is negating the very element that makes jazz...well...jazz.

[princeplanet]

Honest question (that is one I haven't decided I know the answer to!) do you think by training to improvise by ear slowly (ala Warne Marsh) it is possible to learn to improvise at fast tempos? Or do you see fast tempos/double time as a totally different discipline?

The reason neither of us can know the answer to that question is because we simply do not know what it takes to get to a place where you are truly making up entirely new stuff at fast tempos. All I can say is that I've known people who have put a lot of time into ear training and it has done little to improve their imrov at fast tempi. I do know a piano player who was born gifted, and has never practiced ear training, yet has the fastest ear I know of personally. He plays fast and loves to mix it up so much you can't tell if he's truly improvising every single phrase, or that he has a HUGE arsenal of pre learned ideas.

Ultimately what's the difference at that point if the listener can never tell? Is it any less fulfilling for the player if he knows he's using pre learned bits and stitching them together in new ways constantly? You know that Owens' dissertation on Bird showed a mere 300 or so pre learned ideas that Bird constantly used, but it took decades and someone willing to put Bird's recordings under a microscope probably for years to figure it out. Is Bird a lesser player for it?

[Groyniad]

a plausible principle - which i once heard joe pass defend confidently - is that you have to be able to play what you just played again.

any 4 or 8 bar phrase you play has to be such that - if everything stopped (and you didn't just get really cross or otherwise distracted) you could say 'what i just said was - --------------' and say it again. otherwise - i think joe says - it wasn't really yours - you didn't really play it in the first place. or something like that.

well at fast tempos and in double time you have much less time to hear what you're going to play - and everything has to be ultra precise - placed in the bar very accurately. you have to keep playing in phrases that you could re-play - that have shape etc. - but you have to do it in a different time-zone.

mostly that takes great familiarity with tunes in general and with the particular tune thats being played. when you get really familiar you will just hear - e.g. a long double time line that fits in a gap in the melody. and hear it clearly enough that you could pretty much sing it if push came to shove. as long as that is happening - then the rest is physical training.

i find it hard not to think that this physical training is particularly demanding on the bloody guitar.

but that's not relevant here

[wolflen]

to define the creative process in precise terms-no wait..you cant define it!..the above clip of joe diorio playing a chord melody of "round midnight" is about as magical as it gets..of course he knows the melody and chords .. but he is taking chances right before our eyes and ears..and making it work..ok some of the chords sound forced..but they work..when we can play at that level something inside our being is active..its "magic" to a degree as its not planned in any manner and at the same time we cant look at it and say "wow look what Im doing.." because "you" realize your not doing it .. there is a place in meditation exercises where "you" disappear..its a strange feeling and you can only remember it after the fact..not while its happening..because..well "your not there"..

if you have practiced for years you know all the notes and chords..and have heard thousands of songs and millions of variations and solos..breaking away from all you already "know" takes a lot of work..how do you trust yourself to find something "new" to play in a 4 or 5 min solo..

again..the diorio chord melody was created on the spot..joe never played "that" series of chords for that song before..could he do it again..if he watched the vid - im sure-but it would not be the same solo.. its a "one time" deal..

to put it in an ideal romantic setting--you meet someone in a very casual way..at the bank waiting in line or at a café..you both smile and "feel it"..then..its the "long goodbye"..now you "know" how to like someone when you meet them..but in this instance..your didn't have to decide if you like this person..you wanted to just walk away from your present life and go with this person and not think about anything..now you dont "feel" that way about everyone..so something else is in play when this kind of thing happens..and you cant force it..or practice how to react when it happens..which is very rare..your on auto-pilot..just going along for the ride..

[princeplanet]

Anyone can be taught to use their ear at the level of Wayne Shorter and John Coltrane. It just takes a lot of time. A LOT of time. So you have to sacrifice other areas of your practice, life, and sanity (hopefully not, hehe) to achieve that goal.

Like many here, I certainly would like some solid proof of that contention! Can every one learn to be a chess world champion? Or to recite Pi at 100,000 digits? Or to have a photographic memory? There are probably limits to what training can achieve in most fields, particularly with people of average talent (ie, most people)....

[Irez87]

When you are ready to learn, the process will begin.

If you build your ear, the tempos will come...