-
Hi all,
While not a huge Bill Frisell fan, I like some of his stuff and certainly have great respect for him. I have read things like this and am intrigued.
Interviewer: Your approach to melody seems unique in that you break it down piece by piece until you are dissecting the elements of sound within the context of melody. Can you explain that process?
Frisell: When I first started getting into jazz, I studied what was going on with the music theoretically and would look at things more in a mathematical way. I would look at the chords and learn what the chord tones were, what the scales were. But somewhere along the way, I tried to understand all the inner workings of the melody. If the melody isn't there, then it really doesn't mean anything. It's also where it gets harder to explain. With every song, I'm trying to internalize the melody so strong that that's the backbone for everything that I am playing no matter how abstract it becomes. Sometimes I'll just play the melody over and over again and try to vary it slightly. It's really coming from that, like trying to make the melody the thing that's generating all the variations rather than some kind of theoretical mathematical approach.
Interviewer: Could you explain what you mean by internalizing the melody?
Frisell: It's playing and hearing the melody and not playing anything but the melody until it starts going on inside your body, even without thinking about it. But the older I get, the longer it seems to take to learn new things and get it to the point where it's really deep down in there somehow."
I mentioned in a post a while ago a quote from a Peter Bernstein video here Peter says (sic) "the melody IS the song, not the chord progression", and Bill F has said he learns a tune by just repeating the melody endlessly. I suspect more than a few great musicians use this philosophy/technique. I can easily see (hear) how this works for embellishing or "jazzing up" a simple melody, but not so much for deeper improvisation. It seems to oppose the "play the changes" school. Obviously some melodies really outline the chords and some do not. I have read of players who "always hear the melody" in their heads they solo - they don't "think about the changes". It just seems to vague to me; it sounds like it would be wonderful if you could do it though! Does anyone here employ this approach to improvisation, care to offer any insight, experience?
-
12-09-2015 10:08 AM
-
Bill Frisell is unique. I don't use that word often.
His background includes a solid understanding of jazz. He was a pupil of Jim Hall. Bill paid his dues.
He marches to a different drummer. There is a droning to much of his playing, which is not at all be bop. He also looks like it he's giving birth as he produces notes, like it is hard for him to play. But he makes beautiful sounds.
I've read and listened to interviews with him and have watched him perform. Words can't communicate what he's trying to say. I don't know how else to put it. If you expect normal intellectual content in his discussions about music, you'll be mystified at what you get.
Another point is that he's competent at jazz, but what he generally plays is something completely different.
If you think Pat Metheny is out there, at least he's in the same solar system as Earth. Bill is much further out.
-
Venturing further out, you stumble across Naked City.
-
Surely the concept of varying the melody in a solo is not something new. It was done by Louis Armstrong and others in the early days of jazz, and classical and baroque composers were very familiar with the concept. But it does seem to be something that is not often discussed, and I don't see online jazz schools devoted to this approach.
-
Byrne Jazz - Home
Originally Posted by Rob MacKillop
-
As Rob Mackillop sez.... That used to be what jazz improvisation was. In a wierd way Bill is VERY old fashioned. Or at least in touch with the oldest traditions...
I keep meaning to work on this more, but keep getting side tracked by nonsense like 'intervallic chord voicings'....
-
Originally Posted by Rob MacKillop
I think it's two things... One people these are impatient and want to run before they can even walk. They want to whiz by the fundamental ASAP. Second so many now come from Rock and melody is the singers thing and for most part the melodies are pretty weak. In some of the Jazz history books I read they also about the change that came in the 60's where rhythm became more important than melody.
Funny Louis Armstrong is known for playing and embellishing the melody, but Armstrong was getting criticized by his mentor King Oliver for not sticking to the melody enough and throwing in all the embellishment stuff. Back then guys like Louis were called "routines" players. Routines player typically were the guys who couldn't read music, but had enough of a ear to play parts but more important would the guys who could improvise.
-
When I first got into Bill Frisell was back when he was playing with drummer Paul Motian, Frisell was so unique the way he floated through the albums.
-
Good point. Originally Posted by docbop
The melodies of the standards really describe the harmony. It's all about the melody. After all, if you are the chords guy, all you have to do it dress up the melody with some chords, right? Sometimes the melody looks good with not too much on, if it's very lovely... Maybe just a judicious scrap here and there...
Anyway, I'll get my brain out of the gutter....
-
Sometimes the melody suggests more interesting things (for improvising) than the chords.
But it's already been stated - the melody is the song.
-
Bill Frisell has other things going on too: he's sonically very adventurous, using effects and all, and on top let's be honest, his sense of groove is superb. Also his technique borrows plenty from rock and blues, vibrato, bending etc. If you wanna follow this route, sticking mostly to melody without exploring changes, make sure it's not just archtop plugged straight into Polytone or something. The audience might start yawning. Lol.
-
Though Frisell seems to make archtop straight into the amp work too. (though I prefer him on his tele) Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
-
He does, doesn't he! The man got the touch, no doubt. But you can tell by this clip that he's coming from blues school, just as much, or even more, as jazz. That's the main reason I love Bill Frisell, and the main reason I don't like modern jazz players(sorry, couldn't help to say it again). No blues- no interest. Originally Posted by nick1994
And yeah, I prefer him on a tele too. Actually on SG!
Yeah man, turn this thing to 11, screw be-bop hahaha
-
Since I'm working on Body and Soul I stumbled across this, this the the Frisell I like so musical.
-
Hello , Bill Frisell is a genius, I think it's also important to me to consider his contribution in composition and arrangement .
It can helps to understand how he approach a song by studying his own music : Books | www.billfrisell.com .
Also , this helped me to enter his approach : just two aspect to consider and compare: first the lead sheet from Bill Frisell hand , it show us the way he looks at the song in a simple and first way , and a transcription of a played version .
Hope it helps .
Philippe .
-
Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
Quite often with those old tunes, the melody tells you everything you need to know about the chords- sometimes with only a handful of notes.... Originally Posted by rictroll
-
As a proud tele/Princeton player (largely under bills direct influence) I do want to point out that a lot of bills sound comes from the fingers - his use of legato (Campanelas technique and harmonics) and vibrato in particular. Very subtle, and makes him sound like he is using reverb even when he isn't. Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
If you put bill on a nice flat top acoustic with no amp, I am convinced he would get the same sound.
So - You need to work on your tone if you play simple stuff... But bill sounds like bill regardless of his equipment choices, you'll notice (he's been pretty eclectic gear wise over the years)
-
Is this an endorsement NSJ, have you studied it and is this how you base your playing? Originally Posted by NSJ
-
I took a few lessons from Ed, went through his linear jazz materials and highly recommend it. This is one way of going through and playing choruses That is sadly underutilized. It comes down to really internalizing and understanding and analyzing the melody and the rhythmic permutations of the same. Originally Posted by whiskey02
At the time I studied with him, I was relatively new to playing the guitar, so I had a lot on my plate. Thankfully, Ed is not a guitarist, so his way understanding music is not limited by the instrument.
Now, a few years later, if it makes a lot more sense to me. When I go back through the materials, I don't struggle as much in terms of comprehension and implementation .
It is ONE interesting way of improvising, it is not THE way of improvising (there are no magic bullets).
I tried to create a thread here about creating melodies strictly from the root movement and analysis of the same, regardless of the harmonic function of the roots . Which is a very much one of the things that Ed teaches . Along with creating lines from guide tones .
However, the thread went nowhere . There's not as much interest in creating melodies as there is in discussing gear.
-
Yes, I agree, his tone starts from his fingers. And like I said, his technique/tone has more to do with blues than with jazz (IMO). His closer to Jimi Hendrix than Jim Hall the way he attacks the guitar. That by itself creates a lot of interest and excitement. Originally Posted by christianm77
I guess I'm just trying to point out that this approach (simply following the melody) would have to shift your priorities from one area to another, and not just stop working on blowing over the changes. Because Ive seen that happening as well, and it's rather boring. I mean, try to play Cherokee just sticking to the melody, see what happens
-
Well, One person's playing the changes is another's 'reduced melody-guide tones-root progression' that can be approached-targeted-enclosed in various ways. The trombone player I referenced above has 10 specific ways of targeting important melody notes, both from above and from below . Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
I guess I'm just trying to point out that this approach (simply following the melody) would have to shift your priorities from one area to another, and not just stop working on blowing over the changes. Because Ive seen that happening as well, and it's rather boring. I mean, try to play Cherokee just sticking to the melody, see what happens
Of course I agree about priorities and such, mostly it's just a lot of work and elbow grease, as they say . Yes, Not every approach works with every tune, yes, and the truth is usually the whole, not one magic formula.
-
I feel like it's a good time to mention Konitz's "Circles of Improv" idea again....
Frisell's strong connection to the melody allows him a lot of freedom in the harmony as well, which is so cool...I'll hear him put a tune through the paces, and sometimes it's as if he's just trying some stuff out to see what happens, harmonically, and he can do that because he has such a good grasp on the melodic line.
Byrne's ideas on reduced melody are really cool. It's a very modern, freeing approach, a great one to look into...once you've gotten comfortable with making the changes "the old fashioned way."
Something I've done as an exercise, which is really fun and works great, is to write a new melody to a set of change, then embellish that melody and combine with embellishments on the original as an improv "game."
Reply With Quote
Gibson Thin line Guitar Models
Yesterday, 11:07 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos