What Makes a Jazz Solo Musical

[Gabor]

Transcribing, or more general playing others solo (or head) it is hard to decide me what is the more beneficial approach a) trying to play the exact timing and phrasing, or b) make it your own.

Many sources teach that a) is the real purpose, even to try to do it to perfection, and through it learn the jazz expression way. Sounds pretty convincing. It makes a lot of work much more than b). However it raises the question how could have the student a lot of different time feel at the same time,(btw neither is a natural authentic his own) I mean it is way different to play along with Dexter Gordon and say Kenny Burrell? So here is my doubt starts. The student do not want to stick with one single artist, but then is it really good goal to try to emulate different timings, instead of developing one single more authentic, which comes naturally? This would be the b). To make the decision hard, of course I have doubts with b) too: How could a learning student develop a good timing and phrasing other way than conforming the greats? Trying to develop it from scratch his own way sounds a bit risky, and very unefficient way.

While I always hesitate between a) and b), I tend to apply b). To compensate the drawback the b) I try listen a lot of my different hero’s recordings and I mean really listen, and try put in my musical brain those music really deep. Hopefully a something synthesized my natural way will come out, and I try to listen myself also as a listener, and decide what corrections and improvements to made to enjoy that expression as a listener.

[lawson-stone]

OK, then, I think the answer is in the woodshed; there's no way around it. I started down the road to improvising in earnest just over two years ago, and every once in awhile, I hear myself play a good one. I think you're well ahead of me, having played all those transcribed solos. You have the tones and the tempos in your ears, so you're going to recognize the sound you are looking for when you hear it.

David

Thanks-if you're that far along in just 2 years, that's awesome. I've been struggling with this stuff for 25 years and still feel like Captain Lame.

[lawson-stone]

Transcribing, or more general playing others solo (or head) it is hard to decide me what is the more beneficial approach a) trying to play the exact timing and phrasing, or b) make it your own.

Many sources teach that a) is the real purpose, even to try to do it to perfection, and through it learn the jazz expression way. Sounds pretty convincing. It makes a lot of work much more than b). However it raises the question how could have the student a lot of different time feel at the same time,(btw neither is a natural authentic his own) I mean it is way different to play along with Dexter Gordon and say Kenny Burrell? So here is my doubt starts. The student do not want to stick with one single artist, but then is it really good goal to try to emulate different timings, instead of developing one single more authentic, which comes naturally? This would be the b). To make the decision hard, of course I have doubts with b) too: How could a learning student develop a good timing and phrasing other way than conforming the greats? Trying to develop it from scratch his own way sounds a bit risky, and very unefficient way.

While I always hesitate between a) and b), I tend to apply b). To compensate the drawback the b) I try listen a lot of my different hero’s recordings and I mean really listen, and try put in my musical brain those music really deep. Hopefully a something synthesized my natural way will come out, and I try to listen myself also as a listener, and decide what corrections and improvements to made to enjoy that expression as a listener.

Good points. I think it matters what our goal is.

My improvising is awful. I am trying to duplicate Raney because his phrasing and feel are great, mine are not. If I "make the solo my own" basically I take Raney's great solo and ruin it, turning his good notes into my poor time and bad phrasing. But if I work hard at imitating what he does, then it begins to break down my bad habits and take me to new places. I am seeing, in my own attempts (in private!) to improvise, that Raney's ideas and feel are beginning to invade my playing, kind of alike a virus--a good one--injecting new DNA into a host.

So I think the "make it my own" idea depends on whether or not a player already has good feel and phrasing. But if in fact these are the very things one is trying to learn, then your (a) is the best way. I'm tired of sounding like ME, and so I'm using these solos to put some new ideas and changing my feel.

I'll let you know if it works!

[ragman1]

All you can do is be honest to yourself. Play it as you feel it. If people like it, great. If not, too bad.

[corpse]

I am seeing, in my own attempts (in private!) to improvise, that Raney's ideas and feel are beginning to invade my playing, kind of alike a virus--a good one--injecting new DNA into a host.
!

If this is what is happening, keep doing it forever.

[pauln]

...but don't try to make people "feel something."

You do know we're talking about music, right?

[Bflat233]

Thanks-if you're that far along in just 2 years, that's awesome. I've been struggling with this stuff for 25 years and still feel like Captain Lame.

I have played guitar for probably 20 years. I've was doing my best to teach myself jazz guitar for the last 8 using books. I have a library full of them. I wasn't getting anywhere. So I reached out to one of the better known pros in the city and asked if he teaches, and he does. I brought all my books to the first lesson and one at a time, he tossed them on the floor and said, "You don't have enough time to wade through all this (I am 63). There's a lot of ways to approach it, this is the way I do it and I'll get you playing fast."

That was just over two years ago. It's been a lot of work - I'm practicing about 2 hours a day and much more on weekends. He forced me out of the house to play with other musicians, whenever, and wherever, I can. I make that happen at least once a week. And I'm now doing gigs with a bassist. Anyhow, that's a bit of my story ...

I guess the most important thing I could say is find a a teacher, who can pass this amazing heritage to you - one-to-one. And make some musical friends who will play music with you and allow you the space to [learn] discover your own sound.

[christianm77]

Good points. I think it matters what our goal is.

My improvising is awful. I am trying to duplicate Raney because his phrasing and feel are great, mine are not. If I "make the solo my own" basically I take Raney's great solo and ruin it, turning his good notes into my poor time and bad phrasing. But if I work hard at imitating what he does, then it begins to break down my bad habits and take me to new places. I am seeing, in my own attempts (in private!) to improvise, that Raney's ideas and feel are beginning to invade my playing, kind of alike a virus--a good one--injecting new DNA into a host.

So I think the "make it my own" idea depends on whether or not a player already has good feel and phrasing. But if in fact these are the very things one is trying to learn, then your (a) is the best way. I'm tired of sounding like ME, and so I'm using these solos to put some new ideas and changing my feel.

I'll let you know if it works!

There was once a guy who thought along the same lines. He too didn’t think himself good enough to improvise.

But more on him later.

The really important think about making music and the single biggest thing I need to correct in most students is insufficient time taken with internalising the sound of the music they wish to play.

Now the one area where I would say your approach is potentially problematic is that you need to ensure that you spend sufficient time with the source material. Recorded music is a rich source of implicit knowledge. Notation records only the explicit knowledge valued by the Western musical tradition.

I’d suggest singing along with the original solo, matching your articulations to Raney’s. The singing does not have to be in tune. It just has to match the phrasing. Do this for five minutes or so, with your guitar in its case.

You have the music worries about the thing everyone freaks out about (but which isn’t that big a deal in practice) which is getting the notes on your instrument.

Lastly that guy who didn’t think he was a good improviser and just copied his favourite players solos note for note, did ok. His name was Wes Montgomery.

Keep going. Some people like to be free and dive in. Others like to be specific. Both are valid.

[mr. beaumont]

There was once a guy who thought along the same lines. He too didn’t think himself good enough to improvise.

But more on him later.

The really important think about making music and the single biggest thing I need to correct in most students is insufficient time taken with internalising the sound of the music they wish to play.

Now the one area where I would say your approach is potentially problematic is that you need to ensure that you spend sufficient time with the source material. Recorded music is a rich source of implicit knowledge. Notation records only the explicit knowledge valued by the Western musical tradition.

I’d suggest singing along with the original solo, matching your articulations to Raney’s. The singing does not have to be in tune. It just has to match the phrasing. Do this for five minutes or so, with your guitar in its case.

You have the music worries about the thing everyone freaks out about (but which isn’t that big a deal in practice) which is getting the notes on your instrument.

Lastly that guy who didn’t think he was a good improviser and just copied his favourite players solos note for note, did ok. His name was Wes Montgomery.

Keep going. Some people like to be free and dive in. Others like to be specific. Both are valid.

[ccroft]

(music-al-ity) is "sensitivity to, knowledge of, or talent for music" or "the quality or state of being musical", and is used to refer to specific if vaguely defined qualities in pieces and/or genres of music, such as melodiousness and harmoniousness.^[1] These definitions are somewhat hampered by the difficulty of defining music....

It's not easy to define what makes a solo 'musical', but I have a couple thoughts more directly centered on the subject than what I posted before.

It's obvious to all of us that you need the chops. But how do you develop the ability to improvise? I think you can work on that part as a separate skill. I think one really good way is to pick up something you've never tried to play before and see if you can 'get something going' by intuition. Like a hand-drum or a strip of rubber or even a saxophone! (sax is surprisingly easy to play BTW). And if you can get something going then do it a lot more. If not, try a different noise-maker.

I think another good way is see what you can 'get going' over a tune like So What. Forget about all your tritone subs and functional dominants and just blow. As an aside, this is a great tune for learning how to feel fours, eights and sixteens. Bars that is. You can't improvise real music if you're counting them. I think you feel those divisions in a good solo. Smaller cycles of tension and release within those chunks. This also has something to do with 'phrasing'.

You still work on the standards with all our beloved changes, but you also work on this: how to blow. How to use intuition rather than analysis. How to make music.

Even better if you can do it with other folks of similar inclination.

Learning this stuff takes everything you can muster. Christian has a nice post about how learning guitar is 'inter-disciplinary' or something... one skill informs the other. Transcribing, scales, exercising, reading, jamming, performing, noodling around while watching baseball, noodling with TV off. It all works together.

[Marinero]

That’s an interesting post. I’m not sure I agree with it. But I’m also not sure I disagree with it.

Hi, C,
John A. brings up an interesting point. I'd like it to be clear up front I come from another generation of musicians who approached improvisation in a much different fashion-- organically. I understand the educational concept of playing written improvisational solos but I'm not clear how that makes a musician a better creative improviser. For some of us, our root music was the foundation for approaching Jazz. For example, I came from an R and B, Funk, Jazz-Rock background on both guitar and saxophone. And, the solos I played in those genres were foundational to later more complex solos based on a better knowledge of scales, chords and melodic inspired ideas. It was a slow process with many dead-ends and uncountable hours in the wood shed of sheer frustration. But the result of that approach was/is a truly personal message stated musically. When I think of some of my favorite players: Dexter Gordon, Zoot Sims, Gene Ammons, Coltrane, Edidie "Lockjaw" Davis, Chet Baker, Illinois Jacquet, Wes Montgomery to name a few, I cannot imagine them creating the music they did with the "memorized" solo approach and reach the personal voice they all distinctly exhibit. So,in light of this concept, when does your musical message become merely a compilation of others ideas injected into the songs you play? And, how is this a personal voice? Finally, I want it clearly understood that my comments in no way are meant to disparage the OP but rather to express another way most in my generation have chosen to skin the cat. Good playing . . . Marinero
P.S. And, this is also the reason I find so many Classical Guitar players music so staid, predictable and lacking passion and a personal voice. M

[christianm77]

I. Shall. Fight. The. Almost. Irresistible. Urge. To. Type. ‘Ok boomer’. And. Actually. Engage. With. What. You. Have. To. Say....

[grahambop]

Except that Wes Montgomery started out by playing memorised Charlie Christian solos on his first gigs, that has been mentioned quite often.

[christianm77]

Hi, C,
John A. brings up an interesting point. I'd like it to be clear up front I come from another generation of musicians who approached improvisation in a much different fashion-- organically. I understand the educational concept of playing written improvisational solos but I'm not clear how that makes a musician a better creative improviser. For some of us, our root music was the foundation for approaching Jazz. For example, I came from an R and B, Funk, Jazz-Rock background on both guitar and saxophone. And, the solos I played in those genres were foundational to later more complex solos based on a better knowledge of scales, chords and melodic inspired ideas. It was a slow process with many dead-ends and uncountable hours in the wood shed of sheer frustration. But the result of that approach was/is a truly personal message stated musically. When I think of some of my favorite players: Dexter Gordon, Zoot Sims, Gene Ammons, Coltrane, Edidie "Lockjaw" Davis, Chet Baker, Illinois Jacquet, Wes Montgomery to name a few, I cannot imagine them creating the music they did with the "memorized" solo approach and reach the personal voice they all distinctly exhibit. So,in light of this concept, when does your musical message become merely a compilation of others ideas injected into the songs you play? And, how is this a personal voice? Finally, I want it clearly understood that my comments in no way are meant to disparage the OP but rather to express another way most in my generation have chosen to skin the cat. Good playing . . . Marinero
P.S. And, this is also the reason I find so many Classical Guitar players music so staid, predictable and lacking passion and a personal voice. M

I’m not sure from the wording of your post whether you meant you can’t imagine and yet that’s what they did, or whether you think that they didn’t learn by copying solos note perfectly?

In the former case I know what exactly you mean. While I haven’t followed this time honoured route myself (although I did learn a few solos) it does work. Serves as a musical apprenticeship.

In latter case you would be simply incorrect (at least in the case of Wes and Bird. They learned the complete recorded solos of Charlie Christian and Lester Young respectively.)

There is a quiet humility to doing this which I find extremely touching.

[grahambop]

Re. the ‘learn a whole solo’ thing, I never found it that useful to do this. It’s like it was too much information, I just spent too much time trying to perform the memory feat of playing it (badly!).

Much more useful was to just pick a few phrases that really appealed to me, and really learn them and work them into my playing on any tune where they would fit.

You should be able to hear those phrases in your head and play them without any thought at all, as if you had invented them yourself. Then you can spend more time on getting a good feel and time to the notes (doesn’t have to be a carbon copy of how the original player played them, develop your own style a bit). I mean I can’t duplicate Jimmy or Wes’ feel anyway, so I just tried to develop a good feel of my own.

I sometimes changed the phrases a bit, to make them fit better with my way of fingering, articulation, etc. or just to make them easier to play. I see this as a good thing, it is like turning someone else’s influence into your own style.

[christianm77]

Re. the ‘learn a whole solo’ thing, I never found it that useful to do this. It’s like it was too much information, I just spent too much time trying to perform the memory feat of playing it (badly!).

Much more useful was to just pick a few phrases that really appealed to me, and really learn them and work them into my playing on any tune where they would fit.

You should be able to hear those phrases in your head and play them without any thought at all, as if you had invented them yourself. Then you can spend more time on getting a good feel and time to the notes (doesn’t have to be a carbon copy of how the original player played them, develop your own style a bit). I mean I can’t duplicate Jimmy or Wes’ feel anyway, so I just tried to develop a good feel of my own.

I sometimes changed the phrases a bit, to make them fit better with my way of fingering, articulation, etc. or just to make them easier to play. I see this as a good thing, it is like turning someone else’s influence into your own style.

And many great players have also done this way (including you, Emily Remler and Peter Bernstein.)

[grahambop]

lol not sure I would include myself in that august company!

[mr. beaumont]

I'd learn a whole solo from a few of my favorite players, if I had the time or patience.

[lawson-stone]

All you can do is be honest to yourself. Play it as you feel it. If people like it, great. If not, too bad.

I actually care a lot about whether people get joy from my playing. Forgive but I can’t take this one piece of advice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lawson-stone]

Wow. You guys have put some great ideas and wisdom out there and there is a lot of great playing backing up what you say. You’ve given me a lot of great stuff to ponder and try.

This is why I love this forum.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[matt.guitarteacher]

Well, the Jimmy Rainey solo I learned with you somewhat ate my lunch, but it taught me a ton. I wouldn't trade the time spent for anything else.

From the things you're asking about, it almost sounds like you're asking more about the macrolevel structural elements more than the phrases and devices at the local level (like just basic vocabulary and cells and things to be able play over changes). Anyway, if you don't have enough of some of those things you can't really work at the other level, but I think the macro structural level is where Jimmy Rainey's mastery really is in full display: Using rhythmic elements to create tension/release over many many measures at a time.

Because of his mastery , he's able to COUPLE these devices with his best, and honestly, hardest to PLAY lines. But I think the basic ideas work regardless. I would look at trying to reverse engineer some of these cross rhythm type things that he talks about in the preface to the book. In the "nowhere" solo, there are tons of these.... basically playing 3/4 across multiple bar lines, stretching out the tension of the long phrase and creating interest with syncopation and repeated motifs etc, mentioned in post#6. ALL of that.

Again, a lot of these raney phrases are really difficult to play in the first place and maybe harder to apply to other tunes or general changes elsewhere. Probably one of the easier to translate as an étude elsewhere is the basic idea in measures 5 thru 7 of the second chorus. A repeating rhythmic motif which basically implies 3/4 crossing bar lines. Anyway, the melodic statements are simple enough that you could basically apply them just about anywhere in other tunes etc.

Measures 17-21 are similar and probably even better for their simplicity, honestly. You could basically just transcribe the contour of those lines to anything else, in any other context pretty easily. The rhythmic element is the key feature, and the syncopations at the local level are very nice for their own sake. Very bebop. But beyond THAT , they imply the same 3/4 (over-4/4) feel which crosses bar lines and creates tension . Yields longer, multi measure lines by default.

Probably one of the more genius bits is the section starting measure 19 of the first chorus. Basically, he does the same thing, but with a 3/8 metric thing going on. The problem there is that it's just more difficult to transpose to other contexts in my opinion. It's a pedal tone lick I guess? I don't know what you call it.

It might be a cool idea to take a few these larger motif ideas to build some larger phrases in a different context, maybe the practical standards tune or something. Post some ideas here. I'd be willing to workshop and post some amateur examples here myself if it's something we wanted to do.

Anyway, I just think these larger rhythmic structures are a huge part of his genius as a player. They're just so difficult to see because he combines them with very complex melodic vocabulary as well. Much more difficult to see the over arcing form-based structures. It might be cool to work on doing similar ideas at a level witch is easily understood and playable at our own levels as individual players.

[Marinero]

Re. the ‘learn a whole solo’ thing, I never found it that useful to do this. It’s like it was too much information, I just spent too much time trying to perform the memory feat of playing it (badly!).

Much more useful was to just pick a few phrases that really appealed to me, and really learn them and work them into my playing on any tune where they would fit.

You should be able to hear those phrases in your head and play them without any thought at all, as if you had invented them yourself. Then you can spend more time on getting a good feel and time to the notes (doesn’t have to be a carbon copy of how the original player played them, develop your own style a bit). I mean I can’t duplicate Jimmy or Wes’ feel anyway, so I just tried to develop a good feel of my own.

I sometimes changed the phrases a bit, to make them fit better with my way of fingering, articulation, etc. or just to make them easier to play. I see this as a good thing, it is like turning someone else’s influence into your own style.

Hi, Graham,
Your above method is very close to how I approach music past and present. In the case of Wes and Bird playing "memorized " solos in the beginning, it may be the case but one would have to ask based on their development and musical personality, how did it really effect their eventual musical style when listening to them and their early idols? We are all thieves in our musical journeys but these petty thefts are, in my opinion, not major shapeshifters of our eventual style but rather interludes along the path of personal enlightenment--much as periods in our youth where we dated exclusively shapely blondes rather than slender brunettes or redheads. As a young saxophonist in the 60's,70's and 80's, I cut my teeth on the soulful tenors: Gene Ammons, Illinois Jacquet, Stanley Turrentine, and Grover Washington while aiming towards the styles of Dexter Gordon, John Coltrane, and Zoot Sims as my main goal. And, as a guitarist, my influences were oddly not jazz guitarists but rather Jazz horn players whose pacing, and melodic approach are the essence, in my opinion, for solo guitar--whether Classical, Jazz or Bossa.
As far as my "Baby Boomer" status, as my friend C mentioned from my previous remarks, it is, I believe, a helpful designation from my earlier comments since I feel, in many ways, there are more differences than commonalities among musical generations in both style and approaches to music. And, this is certainly visible in all genres of Music--not just Jazz. Eventually, however, there are only so many directions and paths Music can take before it becomes repetitive of previous styles or stumbles incoherently into New Age Diuretics. Great responses on an interesting topic. Good playing . . . Marinero El Boomer

Here's one of my favorite performances: John Coltrane and Johnny Hartman--"My One and Only Love." Listen to Trane's and Johnny's melodic approach--I hear pure guitar. Must be a "Boomer" thing! M

[Gilpy]

What makes a solo musical?
Time, swing, dynamics: “feel”.

Without these, the most brilliant note selection and phrasing are meaningless... the solo just lays there.

Maybe better to work on some simpler material until it really swings. Memorizing long complex solos may distract from developing these basic skills.

[ragman1]

I suspect this is one of those subjects where it's far easier to describe what a good solo is not than it is to describe it in positive terms.

[Gabor]

And many great players have also done this way (including you, Emily Remler and Peter Bernstein.)

I wondering where do you think Peter Bernstein took and metamorphed his phrases from, because his approach to soloing is pretty unique. He obviously digs Monk, but this influence is not like that what grahambop described, more like harmonic.