What are you thinking about when you play / improvise ?

[NoReply]

Yeah, like if you heard Parker's Tunisia break for the first time, could you play it back straight away? Don't know about you guys, but I tend to hear stuff that's just as complex when I'm improvising in my mind, but there's no way I can play it without spending hours working it out. So when I'm improvising with the instrument in my hands, I try not to hear things I can't replicate...

I don't know about bring Charlie Parker into discussions like this he was a freak of nature on so many ways. Parker lived for improvisation so even off the bandstand I was thinking improv. On the bandstand they said he rarely played the same thing twice. If I remember right that Night In Tunisia was a improv battle between Dizzy and Parker. Dizzy and Bird had been on the outs ticked off at each other for quite awhile. This promoted got them to agree to play a couple tunes together at this show. Dizzy and Bird knew what was going on and both brought their A++ game. Parker jumped on stage before he was suppose to and threw down the gauntlet and it was on. Hard changes, ridiculous tempo, and they wore out the band going at it. Can you imagine playing in that band and they point to you to solo, do Diz and Bird can rest their chops for a minute.

Bringing in Bird or one of the other Bop legends to a discussion is like saying.... God created earth, what can you do???

[princeplanet]

I don't know about bring Charlie Parker into discussions like this ....

It was just an example of a difficult phrase not many of us could replicate immediately after hearing it for the first time. Although many of us may be able to "remember" what we heard and maybe sing it (at least in our minds). So if you hear it in your head (whether you "composed" it or not), it does not mean you can play it. That is the point I was trying to make- that people who say they can play what they hear in their head are more than likely hearing what they know, and subsequently playing what they know.

Why am I making this point? Well, there have been times where I've heard novices express that they should give up upon hearing someone boast that one should be able to play "whatever you hear in your head". Slow melodies maybe, but what if you listen to a lot of fast bop, and that's the stuff you're "hearing"??? ...

[NoReply]

It was just an example of a difficult phrase not many of us could replicate immediately after hearing it for the first time. Although many of us may be able to "remember" what we heard and maybe sing it (at least in our minds). So if you hear it in your head (whether you "composed" it or not), it does not mean you can play it. That is the point I was trying to make- that people who say they can play what they hear in their head are more than likely hearing what they know, and subsequently playing what they know.

Why am I making this point? Well, there have been times where I've heard novices express that they should give up upon hearing someone boast that one should be able to play "whatever you hear in your head". Slow melodies maybe, but what if you listen to a lot of fast bop, and that's the stuff you're "hearing"??? ...

Agreed and some name players would say if you are playing what you hear, you're not listening to and responding to the band. You are playing in real time so playing what you hear is about milliseconds of thought if your focus is good. I think there is more sub-conscious. muscle-memory, whatever name you want to use playing going on than people give credit to. It's like computers they say they multi-task but they don't they just do things so fast they appears to be doing multiple things, there still is a central scheduler assigning tasks.

The brain on improv is dealing with listening, tune, watching, making decisions based on those inputs and then telling body what to move, then repeat and repeat and repeat. The human brain is faster than a computer, but is still collecting data from multiple systems in millisecond timeframes. If you know everything you're playing I say your ignoring other real time factors.

[vintagelove]

It was just an example of a difficult phrase not many of us could replicate immediately after hearing it for the first time. Although many of us may be able to "remember" what we heard and maybe sing it (at least in our minds). So if you hear it in your head (whether you "composed" it or not), it does not mean you can play it. That is the point I was trying to make- that people who say they can play what they hear in their head are more than likely hearing what they know, and subsequently playing what they know.

Why am I making this point? Well, there have been times where I've heard novices express that they should give up upon hearing someone boast that one should be able to play "whatever you hear in your head". Slow melodies maybe, but what if you listen to a lot of fast bop, and that's the stuff you're "hearing"??? ...

Thats why you have to assimilate every new bit of vocabulary until it becomes your own.

Practically no one can just play back anything they hear at 320bpm 100% every time. However they could certainly play back thier interpretation of it. It's no different from reading poetry, two people might interpret the same words in different ways.

While ear training and playing back lines is obviously important, I say it's far more important to be able to take a line and make it your own.

That being said, if you have a limited vocabulary, the effectiveness of your communication will be limited.

[targuit]

Improvisation is spontaneous composition. How do you compose? By creating a melody that is in reference to a harmonic background that is grounded in the "melody". Actually, I don't even know who composed A Night in Tunisia (edit - Dizzy Gillespie). I was most familiar with the brilliant version by McCoy Tyner.

Speaking only from my experience, humble that it is, when I improvise in relation to a melody of a song, I create a spontaneous "melody" variation (assuming I'm not playing strictly "the melody"), which is where I anticipate where I want to go in the context of the harmony and with reference to the melody. That anticipation factor is the intentionality. It is not completely random, as if it were, it would sound like GC on a Saturday afternoon.

To use another example. Prince suggests that no one "plays what they hear", yet if I hear a melody on a YT video, and fire up my Yamaha keyboard synth, I can almost invariably nail not only the melodic line but the correct pitch of the notes in terms of key. To what do I attribute this supernatural power? I've been playing a long time, and while I'm not basking in my mansion on the beach in Hawaii due to my millions of albums sold and don't have perfect pitch, I have a very strong relative pitch ability and can usually hit the notes on the piano or guitar without difficulty. It is a function of playing for over fifty years.

Simply put, if you don't "play what you hear" or more properly 'anticipate', then your solo sounds random and disorganized. Not saying one does not occasionally hit an incorrect note, but as Joe Pass would say, if you hit a clam, follow up with resolution to make it work as you are usually a half step away. Then tell 'em you were playing an 'enclosure'.

[princeplanet]

...Prince suggests that no one "plays what they hear", yet if I hear a melody on a YT video, and fire up my Yamaha keyboard synth, I can almost invariably nail not only the melodic line but the correct pitch of the notes in terms of key. To what do I attribute this supernatural power?.....

No, I didn't say "no one can play what they hear", I said very few people can play complex things they hear. The Tunisia break was an example of what I'd consider complex enough...

As for your ability to ape YT melodies, I'm happy for you, but unless those melodies are complex, then I'd hardly suggest this ability is in anyway supernatural!

[grahambop]

Yeah, like if you heard Parker's Tunisia break for the first time, could you play it back straight away? Don't know about you guys, but I tend to hear stuff that's just as complex when I'm improvising in my mind, but there's no way I can play it without spending hours working it out. So when I'm improvising with the instrument in my hands, I try not to hear things I can't replicate...

The story goes that Bird could not play that break a second time, or come up with one quite as good. That's why they put out the recording as 'the famous alto break' even though the rest of that take was useless because the band messed up the performance somehow.

Which suggests that even Parker was not really aware of what those notes were, he just played and that's what came out at that moment, in the heat of inspiration.

[princeplanet]

Agreed and some name players would say if you are playing what you hear, you're not listening to and responding to the band......

Interesting point, although it seems to me that players like Parker, Dexter and Rollins could process simultaneously!
But yeah, seems pretty rare...

[princeplanet]

...Practically no one can just play back anything they hear at 320bpm 100% every time. However they could certainly play back thier interpretation of it. It's no different from reading poetry, two people might interpret the same words in different ways.

.....

Yes, that's another good way to put it, I reckon, that we "interpret" what we think we hear. That's good enough for me, but I wonder if some folks would argue that if you didn't play what you "meant", then it's value is diminished?
(especially if I was going for augmented ..)

[destinytot]

The story goes that Bird could not play that break a second time, or come up with one quite as good. That's why they put out the recording as 'the famous alto break' even though the rest of that take was useless because the band messed up the performance somehow.

Which suggests that even Parker was not really aware of what those notes were, he just played and that's what came out at that moment, in the heat of inspiration.

That's a great point.

[destinytot]

Alone? Nothing, just making music. Part muscle memory, exploration, familiar intervals and patterns, sounds, phrases. Complete creative freedom.

In front of anyone else? A crippling tritone of self-doubt and clams.

Then there's being in the right company. Synergy trumps dysfunction. Takes skill, will and leadership (i.e. no magic). Showing up helps, of course (​chapeau Woody Allen).

[princeplanet]

The story goes that Bird could not play that break a second time, or come up with one quite as good. That's why they put out the recording as 'the famous alto break' even though the rest of that take was useless because the band messed up the performance somehow.

Which suggests that even Parker was not really aware of what those notes were, he just played and that's what came out at that moment, in the heat of inspiration.

This also speaks to my point (actually vintagelove's point) above, that you might play an interpretation of what you think you're hearing. Somehow I think Bird could have played it the same way if he cared enough to, but stories abound that he never did care too much about that. Like the enthusiastic student who stayed up all night after a gig and the next dat presented Bird with a transcription of a solo he played the night before. Bird apparently laughed it off.

Rollins is also famous for not being capable of repeating anything he played. They were his own words, yet I somehow feel that he probably really meant that he was incapable of desiring to repeat himself.

[targuit]

In interviews I have read with Sonny Rollins, he spoke about how he approached performance and improvisation. When he is warming up and hits the stage, he first plays what he called "cliches" to get into the performance mode. Then he tries to allow his subconscious to channel his improvisations. So I doubt that he could 'repeat' his improv. He has been know to take quite extended solos.

More recently I was reading that with age he finds he prefers slower tempo tunes these days by comparison with his youth. Understandable in terms of the physicality of blowing a horn.

[jbucklin]

I have students ask me this question all the time. I usually answer by asking them what they think about when speaking in a conversation. When you think about it (no pun intended) we improvise when engaged in conversation. We're not reading from a script, nor are we reciting something that we've memorized. Neither do we need to be constantly referring, as we're speaking, to the rules of grammar to ensure grammatical precision and coherency. No, the human brain is an amazing organ, and something we tend to take for granted. An activity as simple as a casual conversation is something to marvel at if we stop to reflect on what all is happening (and not happening) as we dialogue with others.

Now, taking what I've said thus far and putting it into the context of musical improvisation, we can begin to draw some interesting parallels. Charlie Parker once said, "Learn your instrument, then forget everything and just play." Easier said than done, huh? But maybe it's not so difficult, if we would simply trust the God-given ability we possess to articulate ideas on the fly, without even thinking about it really, just like we do when conversing. Breaking down the Bird quote, let's consider what it means to "learn your instrument". What is meant here is the lifelong discipline of preparation. Since we live in what jazz educator, Dick Grove, referred to as the era of "ear music", listening, or hearing, takes precedence even over the study of theory, harmony, etc. Now, I am in no way suggesting that knowledge of theory is unimportant. But, the reality is, a musician can possess great knowledge of theory and still not be a good improviser. I'm sure we've all known some very precocious and eloquent pre-schoolers. Another good example is Django. Not only could he not tell you what a C is, he was completely illiterate and probably couldn't write his own name! Did he "know" what he was doing while improvising? Of course he did, just on a more intuitive level. Had he "learned his instrument"? Uh, yeah. So much so that he was completely free to express himself in a myriad of ways on his instrument. What did he "think" about while playing? Probably fishing, since his passion for catching fish rivaled his passion for playing music!

I know this has been a vey long answer to a seemingly simple question, but my challenge to aspiring improvisers is this: just as the precocious child learns to speak from listening, spend much time listening to and learning the improvisations of the masters. Listen until you can sing it, which is the true test to see if you "know" it. Work it out on the guitar, struggling to find fingerings that are easy to see and memorize. Hear it in your head and see it on the fretboard while away from the guitar. Then forget everything and just play.

[neatomic]

The story goes that Bird could not play that break a second time, or come up with one quite as good. That's why they put out the recording as 'the famous alto break' even though the rest of that take was useless because the band messed up the performance somehow.

Which suggests that even Parker was not really aware of what those notes were, he just played and that's what came out at that moment, in the heat of inspiration.

bird could play chorus after chorus and never hit a bad note..or bore the listener...anything he ever laid down was good...listen to the live date recordings of the era...bird was restricted by the recording limits of the day..3 minutes a 78 side..if not he woulda been like coltrane and blown your mind for 15 minutes straight

your talkin about the gods here..its not for him to play, it's for us to understand

cheers


ps- listen to 50's trane, miles, jackie maclean, sonny rollins, chet b...they all box themselves in and hit massive klunkers...bird?? can't think of m/any

[jbucklin]

Miles to Trane: Why you play so long?

Trane: I don't know how to stop!

Miles: Take da horn out cha mouth.

[PMB]

The story goes that Bird could not play that break a second time, or come up with one quite as good. That's why they put out the recording as 'the famous alto break' even though the rest of that take was useless because the band messed up the performance somehow.

Which suggests that even Parker was not really aware of what those notes were, he just played and that's what came out at that moment, in the heat of inspiration.

Parker was a genius but that line was pretty much worked out. The two alternate takes have almost identical breaks. Still an incredible moment!

[princeplanet]

bird could play chorus after chorus and never hit a bad note..or bore the listener...anything he ever laid down was good...

Yeah, and just imagine if Bird had lived a few more years and got to blow over modal tunes. And then a few more into the Free period...

[NoReply]

Yeah, and just imagine if Bird had lived a few more years and got to blow over modal tunes. And then a few more into the Free period...

I imagine Bird would of been like Trane who didn't really like the Model jazz in beginning Trane preferred playing over changes. A few years later Trane started liking model and the switch to melody vs changes.

[princeplanet]

Parker was a genius but that line was pretty much worked out. The two alternate takes have almost identical breaks. Still an incredible moment!

It must have been incredible for the time, but to us now, maybe it can seem a little over celebrated? I mean, as far as exhilarating moments go, Parker probably had hundreds of them equally as exhilarating, if not more so.

Now to be honest, as far as the "thrilling burst of notes" thing got to be known as one of Parker's things, I actually prefer the way Jackie Maclean would do them!!

[Groyniad]

parker seems profoundly under celebrated to me - profoundly

the only thing that marks his true contribution to 20 century art is the number of jazz players who sound like more or less pale imitations of him over the next 50 years

as far as what people say goes - he gets nothing like the adulation he deserves

every since i discovered him my problem has been to take other players entirely seriously

only bud powell seems to me to be in the same league

---

and it no more matters what is passing through your mind when you play than it does when you talk

when i'm talking about e.g. sausages i could be thinking about the eiffel tower or quantum theory or nothing at all

it is not association with private inner goings on (or pictures in the mind or before the mind's eye etc.) that gives words their meanings but their public use

to learn the meanings of words is to learn how to join in with public practices (of thanking, greeting, describing, warning, joking, imploring, requesting etc. etc.) not to associate a private mental image with a perceptible sign (if it was that, there would be as many languages as there are speakers and communication would be impossible)

just so - to learn 'the meanings' of notes and phrases is to learn how to use them in order to join in with a public practice - the public practice (in our case) of jazz improvisation - it is not to learn how to translate private inner episodes into perceptible signs

this is very interesting stuff - i draw here on familiarity with three hundred years of the philosophy of language from Locke to Wittgenstein.

now - in philosophy - thanks to the influence of cognitive science - the bad old idea that the meanings of words are mental images has been given new life and become the idea that the meanings of words are things or events in the brain

this bad old mentalistic model undermines rather than develops our understanding of language - which is a public practice we learn to participate in not a private relation we somehow set up with our own thoughts or mental pictures.

so the question what do people think about when they play may be of a certain interest - it might be interesting to discover that trane thought about sweets and parker thought about vaginas - but it doesn't tell us anything at all about what playing is or where it comes from.

[christianm77]

I don't think Parker under appreciated exactly... Perhaps taken for granted. But yeah.. his music IMHO is a bit misunderstood.

I always find it a bit alarming when I find a modern jazz musician doesn't really like bop. It's like a classical musician saying they don't like Bach.... seems not so much an exercise of personal opinion, and more like totally missing the point of their art form, but that's me.

Usually (like Bach) it's because they were forced to learn bop at college, usually in a very academic way.
Perhaps the problem is that now there is this thing called 'bop' that you study at school, and that is separate from Parker's actual music - in the same way Bach chorale harmony and actual Bach chorales are totally different things.

Also, the actual content of bop is IMO misunderstood. Teaching players to articulate chords in descriptive lines, play upper extensions on chords, tritone substitutes, scalar runs with added chromatics - none of this material is exclusively bop, and none of it originated with bop. However, many modern jazz guys (at last in the UK) have a poor/non-existent grasp of history before the 1940s, so they don't realise this. (In fact I would go further and say that the jazz education vibe is pretty ahistorical in so far as I have been exposed to it in the UK. This has good points and bad points.)

Sometimes this ignorance is self imposed - David Leibman for example states that you should start with Bird and ignore everything previous - so this ignorance can be quite deliberate. I'm lucky that I ended up looking into pre war music for a gig, otherwise I doubt I would have bothered with it....

Anyway, I disagree with Leibman... Transcribing both pre and post war jazz has (I think) shown me the thing that was really novel about Bird's music. I think you'd miss it if you didn't spend a little time with Prez or Louis. For me, this has been important, because it's really shaped the direction I want to take my playing in.

I've said it loads of times - bop is in the phrasing and the rhythm, and this is the thing (for me) which is often missed about Parker's music. It is easily the most advanced thing that Bird does, and IMO no one has been able to replicate that rhythmical imagination through the changes. Bird is still (by a country mile) the most advanced jazz musician.

You just have to compare the very downbeat based phrasing of even an absolute monster swinger like Lester and compare it to the funky, unpredictable way that Bird phrases even the simplest triadic or blues material to find his signature. And it changed everything. Everyone played differently after Bird - even mainstream jazz, or post war swing is totally different to pre-war music. It all carries Bird's unmistakeable fingerprint.

All the rhythmic structures that we think of as terribly clever in contemporary jazz - odd time, metrical modulations - were already present in Parker's phrasing over 4/4 in extraordinarily sophisticated structures. I'm pretty sure that is people had been playing in 7/8 in the 50s, Bird would have been able to adapt his rhythmic language without a problem. In a sense, all we have done for 60 years is mine out ideas that were present in Bird's music.

Anyway, you could be a great player and not study any of this, but I do honestly think if you don't fully understand a musician like Bird's role as both an innovator and a continuation of a tradition you are missing out. This stuff is much more interesting to me than any amount of clever theory.

[Groyniad]

c77 - its a real pleasure to read that post. i'm with you 100 percent - which is not something i get to say very often.

in particular - as well as saying it how it is about bird's role - i think you're spot on about what is really special about bird. its where he puts everything - where he begins and ends - and the rhythmical playfulness he generates within the phrases

i do think bud powell runs with him - at least for a while - sometimes

[goldenwave77]

Target note---how to resolve the line.


Or....do I want to extend the line, a la Dexter Gordon, let's say---who can play long, architectonic solos---sometimes a whole chorus!

(Dizzy can do this well, too, without playing a million notes...and this ability to create "larger structures" within/throughout soloing, is what, to me, separates great soloists from guys who are competent, but not inspired.)

[christianm77]

To return to the OP on a good night, I am kind of shouting the rhythm of the line in my head.

Sometimes I hit snags - such as an awkward harmonic corner. That's why I practice changes, to try and get around the corners.