The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Posts 76 to 100 of 121
  1. #76

    User Info Menu

    Yes. It’s interesting people make the equation between ear playing and improvisation.

    (But then improvisation is a fairly useless term in itself as it covers a broad spectrum of approaches.)

    You have to play all music by ear, even stuff that’s written down.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #77

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Yes. It’s interesting people make the equation between ear playing and improvisation.

    (But then improvisation is a fairly useless term in itself as it covers a broad spectrum of approaches.)

    You have to play all music by ear, even stuff that’s written down.
    To me improvization is what is percieved as 'improvized'. I admit it is very different approach to teh term than usual one. I personally do not care if the player has intention to improvize or not. I care only if I hear it improvized as a listner. At least it seems to me this is the aspect that deserves research. Why do we hear some things like improvized and some not? What 'kills' the improvizational character?
    Why sometimes people say about classical piece ''it has improvizational charachter'? What exactly brings in this character?
    Why when I heard Beson repeating solo note for note on another record I felt like I totally lost the feel of improvisation I had from it before but at the same time almost note-for-note repeated solo by Jim Hall did not change anything in my perception - it still seemed improvized?

    Maybe too many questions but analyzing from listner position is more important imho as it involves contextual cultural and stylistic background...

    I think it is much more important and interesting than usual argument if he 'really' improvized or only partly or he learnt it all and what he thought about... I do not care... presonal intention is personal thing...

    it is interesting only to find organizational tools for players and these tools often have no realtion to the music that sound at the outcome..

  4. #78

    User Info Menu

    Not surprised about Benson - it’s pretty old school to refine a solo that you then perform. More of the greats did it than not.

    But I am surprised to hear that Jim Hall also did this.

    I like your definition. You can’t be a mind reader.

  5. #79

    User Info Menu

    Not surprised about Benson - it’s pretty old school to refine a solo that you then perform. More of the greats did it than not.
    I actually knew that. But exactly in that case it was some kind of shock to me... I can't really explain why... maybe it was contrast between his appearance on stage at the moment... imho sometimes he overdoes with it... you can't satisfy everyone.
    In a word - in that particular case i suddenly felt - deceived -


    But I am surprised to hear that Jim Hall also did this.
    I came across it in some late club recording - I can't remember exactly from where.. I am not evn sure about the tune... it was one of his regulars like All the Things You Are or I Hear A Rapsody maybe...

    It was not exact repeat --- but very similar... and it sounded for me more like I heard a good classical peformer play a piece as oif it is new... even though the material was the same the attitude was real and up to the moment...

    I also heard it from my friend who lived in NY area and was a big fan of Jim and he attended most of his gigs in last years - and he used to say that Ron Carter (in their duo sets they almost always did the same tunes) was almost always with new stuff in impros and Jim often kept coming back to the same ideas...
    He even said that some sounded pre-composed - it is his words -- but considering Jim's approach to music in general I would not be surprised if he really composed some solos as some kind or orginal pieces... as an experiment maybe or out of compositional interest.

  6. #80

    User Info Menu

    On the idea of thinking of the line and then playing it... how often do you guys, in playing with groups, find that your solo comes to you maybe as the guy ahead of you solos? In my limited experience, I have had the experience of "hearing" a great line in my head while someone else was soloing, but then when it became my turn I was not able to play it, or maybe just in fragments.

    This has made me think I should try that experiment of listening to a tune, and singing a solo, recording it, and the trying to transcribe it to the guitar.

  7. #81

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by lawson-stone
    On the idea of thinking of the line and then playing it... how often do you guys, in playing with groups, find that your solo comes to you maybe as the guy ahead of you solos? In my limited experience, I have had the experience of "hearing" a great line in my head while someone else was soloing, but then when it became my turn I was not able to play it, or maybe just in fragments.

    This has made me think I should try that experiment of listening to a tune, and singing a solo, recording it, and the trying to transcribe it to the guitar.
    I did that too... singing and transcribing thing. Very inspiring and fruitful excersises.

    as for thinking about something while the other guy is soloing... when my turn comes I am already in a different mode usually... for me the funniest thing in jazz soloing is spontaneous decisions... I usually start carefully I feel like I am blind trying to figure out the enviroment by touch, trust only my touch... and then I get more and more into it until I at the edge of losing it... that's why probably I need more time usually...
    But also sometomes I feel frustrated... I mean I touch and do not feel
    .. probably I were a pro I would find the way to mimic it somehow. But as I do not play that often I usually stop and listen play one two note which is unfortunately annoying for bandmates...
    I tried to fill it in with what I learnt it does not work for me though seems like ok from outside

  8. #82

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    I did that too... singing and transcribing thing. Very inspiring and fruitful excersises.

    as for thinking about something while the other guy is soloing... when my turn comes I am already in a different mode usually... for me the funniest thing in jazz soloing is spontaneous decisions... I usually start carefully I feel like I am blind trying to figure out the enviroment by touch, trust only my touch... and then I get more and more into it until I at the edge of losing it... that's why probably I need more time usually...
    But also sometomes I feel frustrated... I mean I touch and do not feel
    .. probably I were a pro I would find the way to mimic it somehow. But as I do not play that often I usually stop and listen play one two note which is unfortunately annoying for bandmates...
    I tried to fill it in with what I learnt it does not work for me though seems like ok from outside
    Sometimes I'll try to use an idea from the solo before mine. Sometimes it's an idea I've never heard, or, if somebody quotes a tune, I'll try to quote the same tune. Often, I work a quote in using the same or similar line. But it's also cool to quote a different part of the other tune.

    I don't find myself thinking of melody when I'm listening to the solo before, otherwise. But, I do think about how I want to begin my solo. A lot of that has to do with energy level. For example, if the solo before is absolutely burning with a lot of notes, I know I can't develop that any further. My approach is to enter really quietly, force the comping to come down, and play sparsely. But, if the soloist before me just did that, I have to do something else.

  9. #83

    User Info Menu

    My beginner conclusion, at minimum the player should hear (inside) what her/his fingers are intend to play :-), even if he can not play yet what he hear inside. Unless the first requirement satisfied, it is russian roulette, I am experimenting it sometimes.

    I think the "play what you hear" is overrated itself, because the more important question what you hear? I mean do the player hear inside a meaningful impro? If not, then one problem less... I have an other doubt: You can not execute with your fingers what you've never practiced, (except very simple or slow things, what otherwise could be really cool). So it is impossible to play anything what pops into your head... unless it is correlated with what you've practiced before.

    I agree with all who emphasizes the importance of transcribing. I would like to add, that real listening (maybe without transcribing) is also one of the most important.

  10. #84

    User Info Menu

    I've had a different experience hearing Jim Hall. I'd guess I've caught 100+ gigs of his since the 80's, and don't recall him ever repeating a solo note for note. He's written some great contrafacts, (Walts New, Dream Steps), but never heard a worked out solo. In later years, especially after the back surgery, he really pared down his set list (Beja Flor, All The Things as a waltz, Funny Valentine in 2 keys), both sets the same, but I always felt he was in the moment on his solos.

    PK
    Last edited by paulkogut; 08-26-2019 at 05:06 PM.

  11. #85

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabor
    My beginner conclusion, at minimum the player should hear (inside) what her/his fingers are intend to play :-), even if he can not play yet what he hear inside. Unless the first requirement satisfied, it is russian roulette, I am experimenting it sometimes.

    I think the "play what you hear" is overrated itself, because the more important question what you hear? I mean do the player hear inside a meaningful impro? If not, then one problem less... I have an other doubt: You can not execute with your fingers what you've never practiced, (except very simple or slow things, what otherwise could be really cool). So it is impossible to play anything what pops into your head... unless it is correlated with what you've practiced before.
    No,that's true... generally, the "play what you hear" idea seems to assume people hear note by note... Which as you say can be true of slow music, but when it comes to faster music, we become more interested in whole phrases.

    While it is not possible to improvise note-by-note by ear at fast tempos, we can improvise in heard chunked elements, maybe consisting of 2 beats or more for tempos of 240+... So it's not licks per se, but modules and things that can be chained together into larger structures. This is the way Barry Harris teaches.

    You are hearing those chunks of 4 notes (or whatever) as a musical word in itself... Being able to audiate and vary those chunks in separation is probably quite natural to most musicians as you tend to audiate things you play a lot, but I suspect many people hear complete licks rather than smaller chunks, which is one reason I like to get my students to run variations on material they've learned. Gets you a step closer to improvisation.

    Gordon talks about how to go beyond mere musical memory in audiation, towards being able to shape and change things in the inner ear. Imagine a fretboard and playing lines away fro the guitar, for instance....

    On the other, simple music is nice too :-)

    I agree with all who emphasizes the importance of transcribing. I would like to add, that real listening (maybe without transcribing) is also one of the most important.
    Yeah I 100% agree. The important thing is HEAR music. If you want to write it down, work it out, sing it, whatever floats your boat, that works. OTOH if you listen really closely, that works too. I do feel my listening is qualitatively different when I want to home in on a particular line or idea I want to lift, but maybe that moves one more into a reductionist mindset of note choices and rhythms and aware from a more holistic style of perception that might pick up more on phrasing, feel, architecture and so on...

    But listening is an art, needs to be refined for any serious musician.

  12. #86
    On the subject of Jim Hall, I asked him once if, during his soloing, he ever thought “theoretical” concepts (what key, what scale, what chord substitutions, etc) rather than imagined music in his head, and he said something along the lines of “No, if you’re thinking like that during a solo, you are dead in the water.” I think he meant that one should work to hear music and perform it by ear when performing.

  13. #87

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsilver
    On the subject of Jim Hall, I asked him once if, during his soloing, he ever thought “theoretical” concepts (what key, what scale, what chord substitutions, etc) rather than imagined music in his head, and he said something along the lines of “No, if you’re thinking like that during a solo, you are dead in the water.” I think he meant that one should work to hear music and perform it by ear when performing.
    I have heard most/all great players say this. It kind of accords with my own experience. I play much better when I forget all that stuff... forgetting that stuff is some ways much harder than learning it.

  14. #88

    User Info Menu

    I bet playing by ear and having a good meaningful run is connected to this fancy brain discovery:
    Brain makes decisions before you even know it : Nature News

    Even when something brilliant happens.. by "accident".. it never feels as a surprise when playing by ear and not trying to consciously control the solo too much. Feels good but not something unexpected.
    The surprises come when trying to disrupt and push it out of bounds deliberately.

  15. #89

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by emanresu
    I bet playing by ear and having a good meaningful run is connected to this fancy brain discovery:
    Brain makes decisions before you even know it : Nature News

    Even when something brilliant happens.. by "accident".. it never feels as a surprise when playing by ear and not trying to consciously control the solo too much. Feels good but not something unexpected.
    The surprises come when trying to disrupt and push it out of bounds deliberately.
    I believe that.

    Why it’s so important to get out of the way. The conscious brain is central to practice but a liability for actually making music.

  16. #90

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsilver
    On the subject of Jim Hall, I asked him once if, during his soloing, he ever thought “theoretical” concepts (what key, what scale, what chord substitutions, etc) rather than imagined music in his head, and he said something along the lines of “No, if you’re thinking like that during a solo, you are dead in the water.” I think he meant that one should work to hear music and perform it by ear when performing.
    It's pretty clear I believe... but in my opinion it does not exclude playing solo (almost) note for note or pre-composed... not even in reference to Jim Hall but whoever

  17. #91

    User Info Menu

    Well, here’s what I think is an interesting thing.... doing a little work on acting and singing (back in my opera days)... the worse thing you can do is anticipate, right? Really you need to be saying or singing the words as if you are thinking of them in that moment. (Barry Harris says that.)

    I associate that more with Stanislavsky of course, the whole modern ‘method’ school - which stands in contrast to the older technical and very staged school of acting.

    Now actors are no strangers to improvisation.... but they know how to get the same quality from a script. The same words every night. Seems to me a musician could do the same.

    I’m a really terrible actor btw haha. (Barry would be a good one. He can’t sing but he knows how to put across a lyric.)

  18. #92

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Well, here’s what I think is an interesting thing.... doing a little work on acting and singing (back in my opera days)... the worse thing you can do is anticipate, right? Really you need to be saying or singing the words as if you are thinking of them in that moment. (Barry Harris says that.)

    I associate that more with Stanislavsky of course, the whole modern ‘method’ school - which stands in contrast to the older technical and very staged school of acting.

    Now actors are no strangers to improvisation.... but they know how to get the same quality from a script. The same words every night. Seems to me a musician could do the same.

    I’m a really terrible actor btw haha. (Barry would be a good one. He can’t sing but he knows how to put across a lyric.)
    It is very interesting.
    I often compare acting with musical performance - mostly because this analogy shows that musi also has meanings (no less or even more than verbal texts).

    But in this context it is very interesting...
    If I may I will try to develope it a bit.

    I think there are two illusive differences between musical performance and acting - and if we overcome these illusion we could be better musians

    Those illusive differences are

    1) actors use verbal language. We all know verbal language, we use it daily since early years. It is much easier to wor it out with words than with sounds in music. Especially for open public personalities which actors usually are.

    It seem correct more or less? But it is illusive. Trues actor has to be a charactor, true actor has to be a part of artistic reality duriong action. The text is part of its reality too. To really master the character and speech within particular artictic reality is not less difficult than mastering musical language, requires no less trraining, dedication and practice (I do not say 'talent').
    (The same thing about writer and composer by the way. Writing real literature is not easier or maybe even more challenging becasue language is 'a devil's trap' really).

    2) Time. Music cannot stop.But the actor can make a pause, can slowdown performance, or even freeze it, there is time too, but there is no consequent movement. Yes, musicians can also manipulate with it to some degree but at a rislk to los integrity and within very limited frames.

    True? Seems like yes. But I say it is illusive. Actually in both cases: good acting performance has complex dramatic rythm and actor cannot sacrifice it without breaking the character, and all these anecsotes about actors making pause thinking about the line are good stories but they have nothing to do with real acting.
    On the other side: if you really hear music and control instrument you actually can make fantastic things with time.. I guess you know that feeling when you kepp playing bu music seems to stop so you have enough time to analyze it and make decision. The perception of time is strange thing. I think at certain level every player knows that feeling when 'there is enough time for everything'.

    And one story - there was a great actor in Russia - Oleg Borisov - probably the greatest of the period... I can only really compare him with DeNiro in his best parts maybe... and a few more names...
    Once I saw a documentery about him made after his death and an actress who was often his partner in teh movies and theatre said very precise definition.
    She said: there are lots of average actors, and average actors are always flirting with audience in their roles, this is a part of this job unfortunately, people who go on stage often go there because they want to show themselves. But with real actors you are invoved in the character. That is why real actor can make a bad movie or script interesting becasue it can be interesting for the audience to watch a complex living character.
    (I have a thoery that great directors need not that great actors and vice versa. Bergman or Fellini would not work with DeNiro or Depardieu, the are too much on their own for them, and for example Scorsese in my opinion loses his power without strong actors like DeNiro or DiCaprio)

    I always thought that if someone asks me what Clooney or Brad Pitt or even to some degree Pacino are like in real life I can immidiately imagine something (maybe wrong - but there is some image that shows up through all their parts), becasue they build up their 'stardom' through their parts, they show themselves.
    They can be good of course too when they fit the part. When it coincides.

    And if someone asks about DeNiro - there is nothing, emptiness, he is like 'does not exist', only his characters and paradoxally he does not use any tricks mostly and I see it even in idiotic comedies... there is even no need for that but DeNiro's character is real personality there. (by the way I think it is not needed for comics - on the contrary they should keep the same character through all the parts)

    Meryl Streep seems to be the same kind of acting..
    They are the most emblematic actors for me probably.


    It concerns musicians too. It can be mistakenly understood taht one shoudl take away his personality, be abstract (I heard these theories about music performance). Not at all. On the contrary it requires even more true personality being involved.

  19. #93

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    ...Now actors are no strangers to improvisation...
    Agree, and would like to add improvising is way more common what we are generally think about it, and this is the very first mistake when we approach it. Everybody is an improviser in everyday.

    In general when you are in talking to someone you are improvising in a particular language. You have a "theme", you have a "thought" in your mind, you carefully choose your "style", and you try to "express" yourself. (not always with success :-), maybe you picked not appropriate style, or your thoughts have flaws, or maybe everything is ready, but you have no success in expression, or you are drunk and your mouth and tongue muscles are out of control.

    ...or...

    you do not master the language, because it is just half year you started to learn your Italian as a second language..
    any component above is missing you will not have success.


    I think this is all above not a simile for improvising, it is the thing itself. If we try to reuse our experience in speech, then it seems that "play by ear" is not everything, it just a small part to render something. First of all you must have thoughts. But as in speech, thoughts are formulated in your mind in a language, not as random vowels and consonants. So you must master a language to have thoughts. It is a prerequisite, there a no thoughts without language. Then and only then it comes to express. (this would be the "play by ear" thing). However, you must physically execute the expression plan (with your mouth in case of words, and with your hands in case of music) If your mouth does not trained to a word you really will have difficulties to even say it. Similarly in your instrument.

    Currently as I see improvising is the most common and natural human thing. Then what is the trouble? The main trouble is thinking the "play by ear" is the thing itself. It is not.
    - first you must have a language, (well this is a cliche, sorry), but what is maybe not a cliche, that you must take this literally. Do not even hope to a have a musical thought without having a language, so you do not have to worry about "play by ear" this case.
    - then must have thoughts formulated with that language,
    - then must have a skill to convert your thought to express it (play by ear)
    - then you must capable to execute it (you never will be capable execute "anything", just your language's words and sentences, but luckily this is not a real limitation)

    About Jim Hall (or any great artist) never repeating himself. First of, yes they repeating them self a lot. Bach was repeating, himself, Mozart was repeating himself, Coltrane repeating himself (even within one solo, dozen times), Pat Martino even created a whole system how to play the very same phrase over different musical contexts, and he called this "reuse".

    The good news we (hopefully) can learn how to make the impression you never repeat yourself if you use "variations", there are endless combinations. Even rhythmic variation (what are not related to pitch "ear") can make hardly recognizable the very same phrase.

    I do not know if had success to express myself, I was improvising :-) and English is my second language, and also there maybe flaws in my thoughts too, and also there could be misleading typos :-)

  20. #94

    User Info Menu

    The standard of debate is very high here !
    I'm coming round to your language metaphor Gabor
    i think you're right
    youve got to know a few words and phrases
    before you can speak meaningfully

    For me the implication of that is
    l e a r n t u n e s . . . .

    if I don't have any idea (sometimes all night long !)
    I admit I'll just noodle around the changes
    adding bits of the tune if I can grab them
    often I'll miss the notes but chance something else out of it
    if I'm hearing some clear ideas in my head ... then great
    i'll try to play them , simple stuff

    If I get it right ....
    It is down to to how well I know the tune and the changes
    thoroughly know it , not play it by rote

  21. #95

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabor
    It is a prerequisite, there a no thoughts without language.
    Language is a derivative of thought, not thought itself; thought comes before and ultimately manifests in many final interpretive forms, only one of which is language.

    In music, the grasp of primary elements (pitch, duration, loudness, tone, harmony, melody, rhythm) don't require any verbal methodology at all. It's possible to define verbal descriptions of these elements, construct a language extension, and call it music theory, but that theory language is not a prerequisite for grasping, composing, or performing music, certainly not for just enjoying music.

    Many of us that exclusively play by ear eschew verbal language altogether when playing because it interferes with our own type of musical thought process which is non-verbal and intrinsically does not use named things (no names of notes, intervals, scales, degrees, chords, etc.) ... when playing, there's no labeling of musical objects and no internal verbal conversation within oneself concerning these objects because verbal concepts would present a useless and unnecessary distraction from the fundamental process of grasping, selecting, and producing purely phenomenological musical flow.

    Sometimes people mistake this method of playing without language as some kind of disdain or contempt for music theory. It is not; I myself know and enjoy discussing music theory - it's just that verbal theory language concepts have no place in this kind of playing by ear. We still have a kind of music theory, but it is comprised and contained within internal abstract non-verbal mental aural representations that are best described as "how it sounds"... so there are no books, the recordings are our "books". We enjoy, learn, understand, recall, manipulate, compose, perform, and improvise music based on how it sounds.

  22. #96

    User Info Menu

    This rarely occurs, but it happened yesterday.

    At a workshop, the leader starts playing a tune which I vaguely remembered hearing. No chart. Very unconventional changes and a lot of them.

    He plays the head. A few people knew the tune. Somebody solos. Points to me to take a solo. I had no idea of the changes.

  23. #97

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pauln
    Language is a derivative of thought, not thought itself; thought comes before and ultimately manifests in many final interpretive forms, only one of which is language.

    In music, the grasp of primary elements (pitch, duration, loudness, tone, harmony, melody, rhythm) don't require any verbal methodology at all. It's possible to define verbal descriptions of these elements, construct a language extension, and call it music theory, but that theory language is not a prerequisite for grasping, composing, or performing music, certainly not for just enjoying music.

    Many of us that exclusively play by ear eschew verbal language altogether when playing because it interferes with our own type of musical thought process which is non-verbal and intrinsically does not use named things (no names of notes, intervals, scales, degrees, chords, etc.) ... when playing, there's no labeling of musical objects and no internal verbal conversation within oneself concerning these objects because verbal concepts would present a useless and unnecessary distraction from the fundamental process of grasping, selecting, and producing purely phenomenological musical flow.

    Sometimes people mistake this method of playing without language as some kind of disdain or contempt for music theory. It is not; I myself know and enjoy discussing music theory - it's just that verbal theory language concepts have no place in this kind of playing by ear. We still have a kind of music theory, but it is comprised and contained within internal abstract non-verbal mental aural representations that are best described as "how it sounds"... so there are no books, the recordings are our "books". We enjoy, learn, understand, recall, manipulate, compose, perform, and improvise music based on how it sounds.
    thats all true
    but I believe Gabor was talking about learning a verbal language
    can be seen as a metaphor for learning music/improvisation

    Govan said an interesting thing about this
    he said something like
    when I was a kid I just absorbed music
    (it was always being played in the house)
    same as I just absorbed my first verbal language
    ie I didn't think about it , I just did it

    when you learn a second verbal language
    you don't learn that way
    you learn lists of verbs , nouns , rules of grammar etc etc
    IOWs it's like like learning music .....by studying music theory

  24. #98

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    This rarely occurs, but it happened yesterday.

    At a workshop, the leader starts playing a tune which I vaguely remembered hearing. No chart. Very unconventional changes and a lot of them.

    He plays the head. A few people knew the tune. Somebody solos. Points to me to take a solo. I had no idea of the changes.
    What tune, what happened? Were you able to solo anyway?

  25. #99

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabor
    Agree, and would like to add improvising is way more common what we are generally think about it, and this is the very first mistake when we approach it. Everybody is an improviser in everyday.

    In general when you are in talking to someone you are improvising in a particular language. You have a "theme", you have a "thought" in your mind, you carefully choose your "style", and you try to "express" yourself. (not always with success :-), maybe you picked not appropriate style, or your thoughts have flaws, or maybe everything is ready, but you have no success in expression, or you are drunk and your mouth and tongue muscles are out of control.

    ...or...

    you do not master the language, because it is just half year you started to learn your Italian as a second language..
    any component above is missing you will not have success.


    I think this is all above not a simile for improvising, it is the thing itself. If we try to reuse our experience in speech, then it seems that "play by ear" is not everything, it just a small part to render something. First of all you must have thoughts. But as in speech, thoughts are formulated in your mind in a language, not as random vowels and consonants. So you must master a language to have thoughts. It is a prerequisite, there a no thoughts without language. Then and only then it comes to express. (this would be the "play by ear" thing). However, you must physically execute the expression plan (with your mouth in case of words, and with your hands in case of music) If your mouth does not trained to a word you really will have difficulties to even say it. Similarly in your instrument.

    Currently as I see improvising is the most common and natural human thing. Then what is the trouble? The main trouble is thinking the "play by ear" is the thing itself. It is not.
    - first you must have a language, (well this is a cliche, sorry), but what is maybe not a cliche, that you must take this literally. Do not even hope to a have a musical thought without having a language, so you do not have to worry about "play by ear" this case.
    - then must have thoughts formulated with that language,
    - then must have a skill to convert your thought to express it (play by ear)
    - then you must capable to execute it (you never will be capable execute "anything", just your language's words and sentences, but luckily this is not a real limitation)

    About Jim Hall (or any great artist) never repeating himself. First of, yes they repeating them self a lot. Bach was repeating, himself, Mozart was repeating himself, Coltrane repeating himself (even within one solo, dozen times), Pat Martino even created a whole system how to play the very same phrase over different musical contexts, and he called this "reuse".

    The good news we (hopefully) can learn how to make the impression you never repeat yourself if you use "variations", there are endless combinations. Even rhythmic variation (what are not related to pitch "ear") can make hardly recognizable the very same phrase.

    I do not know if had success to express myself, I was improvising :-) and English is my second language, and also there maybe flaws in my thoughts too, and also there could be misleading typos :-)
    If you scroll up you may see the Edwin Gordon lecture I posted.

    His opening statement is 'music is not a language, but this is why I find it useful to think of it as one.' His thoughts are quite interesting. Not sure if I 100% agree with everything he says, but good food for thought.

    That's a great point about great musicians repeating themselves - that's very pertinent. I think we are in danger of taking to idealised an approach to art... Which to me is boring and arid.

    As a philosophical point the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (Linguistic relativism) is always interesting. You seem to be espousing the strong position, although that is rejected by most modern linguists AFAIK. So space squids probably couldn't make us perceive time non linearly.

    The Homeric 'wine dark sea' is a classic example - while I don't think the ancient Greeks perceived the sea as dark red, their lack of a word for blue created this (to us) rather odd descriptive device, and categorised dark colours as the same sort of thing in a way that is strange to a modern English speaker.

    I sometimes wonder of the language we use to talk about musical analysis doesn't have similar aspects to it. Some of the arguments here seem to suggest that to me.

  26. #100

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pauln
    Language is a derivative of thought, not thought itself; thought comes before and ultimately manifests in many final interpretive forms, only one of which is language.
    Stating that does not make it so.