Musical Memory - The elephant in the room...

[paul.trapanese]

Yes of course. But invoking memory, like one does in a spelling bee or playing jeopardy or taking a multiple choice test - ain't it. There's no time.

It has to be closer to a reflex or impulse, and humans don't perform long, complex, mult-step actions reflexively without a lot of pre-drilling.

Of course. That’s what practice is for. Getting it down then allow your deeper mind to express it in real time playing situations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zina]

Sounds like someone has spent a little too much time in those Hollywood hills?

Not me! Haven't been to the States yet. But I know what you mean; was laughing my head off recently over an article that described all those places. Thought it was a joke ("Aura Cleansings"?!), but nope.

[princeplanet]

Nah, but we could dissect your "hypothesis" (being kind here) if you'd like. It might be an interesting discussion, at least for those who are interested in improvisation. (one would hope that would be a lot, around here anyway).

As for me, I think that you're putting too many eggs in one basket, that's all. (Meaning, assigning excessive importance to a single enabler - memory).

Haha, I didn't realise I was hypothesising anything, but if I wanted to reduce the questions posed in this thread into a single sentence, it might be something like;

"Would a player like Sonny Stitt have been able to play the way he did, with a 'bad' memory?"

[joelf]

What separates the great improvisors from the rest of us? Setting aside the prerequisite years of study, practice etc, why do some players seem far more advanced when compared to those that have been practicing just as hard for the same amount of time?

Is it down to how musically gifted one is (perfect pitch etc)? Or how intelligent? Or is it down to how well one can remember what they've learned?

When you first hear a player playing Jazz involving functional or non functional chord changes (as opposed to modal vamps) that astounds you, you're amazed at the endless invention, the seemingly impossible perfection when spinning perfect lines that meet every change, not with plain arps, scales or patterns, but with melody making at any tempo. The solos can be analysed to reveal true mastery, achieving the holy grail in Jazz improvisation, perfect composition in real time, a masterpiece of invention every time, whether for one chorus or a hundred. Must be genius, right ?

Well, sometimes it obviously is. Just like there are born mathematical geniuses (people who can solve incredibly difficult equations effortlessly), at any one time there will always be a very small percentage of people alive that are bona fide musical geniuses. But there are also a greater number of people who can appear to be musical geniuses only because they can recall a great deal of pre learned material giving the impression that those 100 choruses you just witnessed must have been freshly minted and unrepeatable. Until you've been to a hundred gigs, or listened to a hundred different recordings where you start to notice large repeated chunks which make you realise that these players are mortals after all!

Of course, it's no mean feat to have that kind of recall, indeed it's a different kind of gift. So I'm just putting it out there and looking for your own thoughts about this, particularly as it relates to your own aspirations- Are you trying to increase your store of prefab "material" to draw from? Or are you trying to avoid that approach and aim instead for true improvisation? Do you feel that the prefab brigade - that go close to impersonating true genius - are offering the listener better quality music? (because of it being largely precomposed?). Do you think the average listener cares how much is pre learned and recalled? (not just licks or lines, but maybe up to entire choruses).

Or are you more focused on the enjoyment your improvisation brings you? Is making the changes with less interesting but truly improvised playing more satisfying for the performer if not for the listener? If you play for your own enjoyment, is there any point rehashing words, sentences or even paragraphs of music note for note? Even if you could?

Finally, do you agree that many players feel the need to impersonate true musical genius and achieve that - to an extent - by committing a lot of material to memory and having it recallable? Are they trying to "fool" the listener? Or even other musicians?? (much harder I expect) ...

I've used that phrase myself many times, but in a different sense: with students (ESPECIALLY beginners) I try to point out that 'you KNOW that song. It's in your memory---now let's get it under your fingers'. And, know what? it WORKS!

Thanks for letting me go a bit off-topic, but I DO consider what I wrote of value to those here who teach.

Now to your intriguing topic:

Don't know, at first blush, about the 'genius' thing: I've known (or known of---not counting prior history here) only 3 musicians that I consider musical geniuses in all my years playing and listening: Jaki Byard; Tom Harrell; and Joe Cohn. I myself have the misfortune of being intellectually (mostly verbally---my math sucks big time) but not musically at a pretty high IQ level. I can only say this: it's more trouble than blessing in one way, and that's that it's difficult sometimes to keep up with one's own thoughts. I say this not to stroke myself---though I'm sure it will look that way to some---but to try to shed some light on why some actual musical geniuses may seem difficult or distant. There's a LOT going on in those noggins, and they really need to be off by themselves a lot b/c they are, and more quotidian thoughts and conversations can slow them down or, worse, distract them from the high level thinking the creative process requires. I believe that true geniuses intuit this. I also believe that they tamp it down and listen at an incredibly high level when making music---and not only to themselves. But the downside: they often---gifted, special people---burn themselves out with 'habits' to take the edge off that incessant brilliance.

Speaking for my own little musical baubles: I care about reaching listeners---or why do it or do anything in public? I'd rather be remembered for uniting, uplifting, and bringing joy (or sadness sometimes) to people than some unique contribution that I'm certain I'd have made long ago if it was in my power or talent to make.The jazz artists who most did achieve this IMO were those who somehow played something that had something to do with the universal: brilliant and 'everyday' at once. To me the names that jump off were swinging melody masters: Pops; Pres; Billie; CC; Wes (and Buddy and Monk); Stan; Chet; and, I'd have to say, Art Farmer and Jim Hall in a more subtle but equally valid way. An absolute genius who IMO didn't reach people but still had brilliant concepts and started his own school, like it or not: Lennie Tristano.

I yield my time to others, Mr. Chairman/Madam Chairwoman...

[matt.guitarteacher]

I can tell by your confident tone here, and on other threads, that you are a pro jazz guitarist, so I'm quite interested to read your thoughts about all this.

Mmmkayyyy...

You know, I think I could probably b.s. well enough to give that impression as well, ..... IF only I hadn't ever posted my playing.... Kind of gave it away. Oh well...

Maybe that's a thing though. Create a new username and speak with a lot of authority about what others should do and just remain anonymous.

Maybe in my next iteration... Think I'll call myself fumbles....

[Jazzstdnt]

Haha, I didn't realise I was hypothesising anything, but if I wanted to reduce the questions posed in this thread into a single sentence, it might be something like;

"Would a player like Sonny Stitt have been able to play the way he did, with a 'bad' memory?"

The answer is no. Nor, if he had a bad anything else that was needed, for that matter.

[Jazzstdnt]

Mmmkayyyy...

You know, I think I could probably b.s. well enough to give that impression as well, ..... IF only I hadn't ever posted my playing.... Kind of gave it away. Oh well...

Maybe that's a thing though. Create a new username and speak with a lot of authority about what others should do and just remain anonymous.

Maybe in my next iteration... Think I'll call myself fumbles....

OK son. So you're not taking a position on the points posed of course, just getting personal again.

And I've posted a bit of my playing here and with links to Souncloud, where you could listen to more if you cared to - but it wasn't called for in the context of why I was posting here, so I didn't presume.

Now, you're a "guitar teacher" right? At what prestigious graduate jazz program again? I don't recall.

And I haven't heard your "playing" here either. I have heard your "practicing on the internet" though, in the Jerry Coker studies. You get that's what that is, right? Practicing on the internet. And with an incorrect pick grip and about 10-20% of the notes missed. That's you, right?

Just checkin'.

[pauln]

[ccroft]

There is no 'correct' pick grip.

Back on topic: in my experience the memory that matters most in group improvisation is the ability to recognize what happened 2 or 32 bars ago, and to be able to refer back to and build on that.

Long term memory gets in the way of creativity. That's where all the 'unhealthy' behavior comes from: trying to get free of it. Along with all the rote crap that's been learned and repeated by all the other students thru the decades.

[Jazzstdnt]

Lol, nice. But in truth, maybe not as "quickly" as it may seem.

[Jazzstdnt]

There is no 'correct' pick grip.

Uh yeah, there really is.

Although one can spend an inordinate amount of time and herculean effort attempting to overcome the suboptimal choice that they've made.

Vertabrates are capable of impressive adaptation. Lots of choices in life.

[grahambop]

Haha, I didn't realise I was hypothesising anything, but if I wanted to reduce the questions posed in this thread into a single sentence, it might be something like;

"Would a player like Sonny Stitt have been able to play the way he did, with a 'bad' memory?"

To be fair to Sonny Stitt, he could also come up with great solos that are much more than a sequence of ‘licks’, this is one of my favourites:

[matt.guitarteacher]

And I've posted a bit of my playing here and with links to Souncloud, where you could listen to more if you cared to - but it wasn't called for in the context of why I was posting here, so I didn't presume.

Cool. My bad. Where was that again?

[joelf]

...in my experience the memory that matters most in group improvisation is the ability to recognize what happened 2 or 32 bars ago, and to be able to refer back to and build on that.

Long term memory gets in the way of creativity. That's where all the 'unhealthy' behavior comes from: trying to get free of it. Along with all the rote crap that's been learned and repeated by all the other students thru the decades.

Agree with the 1st statement: Me, I eschew playing the 1st solo, even on my own gigs. For one thing, if I've already stated the melody it's gonna wear out the listener with too much of the same thing. I also consider it self-absorbed. OK, maybe yiz think that's going too far, but that's just me. The main reason: I want to hear the prior soloist's last phrase and play off that. Then it's a conversation, ne c'est pas? I always preferred jazz as a we, rather than a me music, plus that last phrase will take me in a fresh direction rather than what Lee Konitz has called 'prepared playing' (speaking of 'memory').

As to your 2nd statement: Sorry, but, respectfully, no cigar. The rote, cliched stuff is only 'glue' that can carry one to the next actual idea. It's when it takes on a life of it's own that it's boring.

Analogy: depression has a use, believe it or not. Since we're talking brilliance here, a mention of depression is germane. Depression can slow a fast brain down---a good thing when one is burning one's jets too fast and bright and heading for a crash. It's a failsafe mechanism, like the brain saying 'buddy, I'm worried, so you're grounded. Taking you out of action to recoup and slow down'. But if/when depression turns into its own debilitating thing that's equally time to worry.

Same thing with those irksome 'rote' and cliched phrases. They can help get through an uninspired night, are familiar to the listener---and as I stated above, and that helps get one's point across. We're not up there in a bubble.

I'm not endorsing boilerplate here. I am saying that many players are not as 'deep' or original as they take themselves to be. The old test of time will bear that out: only a scant few true innovators every generation. Innovation and originality are not one and the same: innovation connotes use by others b/c it's an improvement over what existed before. Originality can be 'bubble wrap'. There's a guy in NY I know. I'll leave his name out. It's not important. This guy is original, but in his own world and nobody wants or cares about what he does for themselves, because it's not useful. It doesn't move the art ahead, it's merely for that originator, and, sadly, will probably die with him. Some 'original' players are creating, but in a vacuum: 'It's me against the world'. That can be an awfully lonely place and may even be self-deluding.

You need that 'glue' sometimes to make it 'understandable'. No less a musical thinker than Bill Evans stated in print (paraphrasing here): 'I don't want to be strange and new just to be strange and new...I'd rather work with a tradition that's been tested and used for hundreds of years across many cultures...'. There's no limit to what can be done with what's already here. It's what you do with it. A true original, by my lights, builds on tradition yet breaks that mold by seeing/hearing what truly new. Bird with McShann or especially on Slim's Jam (Slim Gaillard). You can hear the blues and the swing era as he links to it while double-timing and taking the harmony in fresh directions. From one decade to the next in one solo!

Dizzy called this 'evolution'. I like that...

[princeplanet]

The answer is no. Nor, if he had a bad anything else that was needed, for that matter.

Then who decides what's needed?

If you get to decide, then apparently it's:

Baseline factors.

1. A solid facility on one’s instrument – capable, but not necessarily virtuosic
2. Basic musical talent – a decent ear and modest creative ability
3. Effective facility with the jazz improvisation language in context of its common “formulae” (II-Vs, major and minor, turnarounds, rhythm changes, blues, modal vamps, cycles, Coltrane changes, etc.)
4. Keeping one’s practicing and rehearsal routines in shape (i.e. frequent and focused)
5. Experience playing a lot of songs at “the performance level”
6. A simple compositional form (i.e. less than or equal to 32 bars, repeated over and over)
7. Average to above average intelligence (yes, including a good memory)
8. A healthy lifestyle – sleep, exercise, diet – WHICH IMPLIES - a minimization of health and cognition reducing habits (i.e. use of like alcohol, marijuana, opioids/heroin

Differentiators
Very high levels of physical talent, capability, activity and repetition - relative to items 1-5 above.


... tellingly, you left out things like "taste", "originality", "risk taking , or most importantly perhaps, the ability to react and respond spontaneously to other players on the bandstand ...

[joelf]

We're talking around each other---a 'guy' thing.

How's about we try talking to each other? (like on the stand, ideally)...

[princeplanet]

...I always preferred jazz as a we, rather than a me music, plus that last phrase will take me in a fresh direction rather than what Lee Konitz has called 'prepared playing' (speaking of 'memory').

...Originality can be 'bubble wrap'. There's a guy in NY I know. I'll leave his name out. It's not important. This guy is original, but in his own world and nobody wants or cares about what he does for themselves, because it's not useful....

You need that 'glue' sometimes to make it 'understandable'. .... A true original, by my lights, builds on tradition yet breaks that mold by seeing/hearing what truly new. Bird with McShann .... Dizzy called this 'evolution'. I like that...

I think we all kinda agree that it's desirable to have some prepared learning (the glue) along with some originality (preferably spontaneous). Too much of the former, or of the latter can lead a player to fail to connect to the listener. I think your points about this were well made, cheers.

But the casual listener doesn't always care if a solo is composed or not. Even in Rock, I always got the impression than fans of bands that featured guitar solos didn't care if the solo was pre composed, and sometimes complained if the live improvisation was unlike the recorded version!

[joelf]

To be fair to Sonny Stitt, he could also come up with great solos that are much more than a sequence of ‘licks’, this is one of my favourites:

LOVE Topsy! I played with the composer, Eddie Durham, in attendance at the old West End, opposite Columbia U., ca 1983-4. Play it every chance I get, but forget about any young, 'hip' player bothering to learn it, or other important older tunes in the lexicon.

Always dug Sonny. He was so strong, and always delivered. I remember that 'other' Sonny, Rollins, saying that 'proficiency is important'. People aren't mind readers. Clarity and not stumbling over every other phrase will go a long way toward getting one's point across. Stitt may have had his repetitious elements (like Grant Green or Pat Martino), but all three were crystal clear at all times---and, when inspired, look out! Home run time...

[princeplanet]

To be fair to Sonny Stitt, he could also come up with great solos that are much more than a sequence of ‘licks’, this is one of my favourites:

Yeah, fair call... Let's face it, if it wasn't for Parker, Rollins, Getz, Trane etc , then Stitt would be right up there on a pedestal. I always thought Johnny Griffin was harshly judged by his contemporaries as well ...

[grahambop]

I saw Sonny Stitt only a year before he died, he must have been ill by then but it didn’t show, he was like an unstoppable force of nature. Here’s a photo I took:

[princeplanet]

...I remember that 'other' Sonny, Rollins, saying that 'proficiency is important'. People aren't mind readers. Clarity and not stumbling over every other phrase will go a long way toward getting one's point across. Stitt may have had his repetitious elements (like Grant Green or Pat Martino), but all three were crystal clear at all times---and, when inspired, look out! Home run time...

Interestingly, in that battle of the Sonnys (Oleo), I found that jazz players preferred Rollins, discerning casual listeners preferred Stitt, and the non discerning listeners couldn't tell the difference!

(Yup, I really did run this " listening test" a while back ) ...

[paul.trapanese]

Uh yeah, there really is.

Although one can spend an inordinate amount of time and herculean effort attempting to overcome the suboptimal choice that they've made.

Vertabrates are capable of impressive adaptation. Lots of choices in life.

Ha! Tell that to Metheny, Benson, Martino.......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jazzstdnt]

Ha! Tell that to Metheny, Benson, Martino.......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well my last sentence already addressed that. Was thinking of Metheny specifically when I wrote it. Maybe I'm mis-remembering, but I seem to recall that he admitted it was "wrong" but he didn't have a teacher around when he was starting, or something like that. I don't know that the other two hold a pick incorrectly, or as you might prefer "in unorthodox fashion". Do they?

Dizzy Gillespie admitted to incorrect technique. Arnold Palmer had a goofy swing.

Adaptation.

[Jazzstdnt]

Then who decides what's needed?

If you get to decide, then apparently it's:

Baseline factors.

1. A solid facility on one’s instrument – capable, but not necessarily virtuosic
2. Basic musical talent – a decent ear and modest creative ability
3. Effective facility with the jazz improvisation language in context of its common “formulae” (II-Vs, major and minor, turnarounds, rhythm changes, blues, modal vamps, cycles, Coltrane changes, etc.)
4. Keeping one’s practicing and rehearsal routines in shape (i.e. frequent and focused)
5. Experience playing a lot of songs at “the performance level”
6. A simple compositional form (i.e. less than or equal to 32 bars, repeated over and over)
7. Average to above average intelligence (yes, including a good memory)
8. A healthy lifestyle – sleep, exercise, diet – WHICH IMPLIES - a minimization of health and cognition reducing habits (i.e. use of like alcohol, marijuana, opioids/heroin

Differentiators
Very high levels of physical talent, capability, activity and repetition - relative to items 1-5 above.


... tellingly, you left out things like "taste", "originality", "risk taking , or most importantly perhaps, the ability to react and respond spontaneously to other players on the bandstand ...

No I don't get to decide. It was just my POV, stated as succintly as I could manage. My point is that any complex task requires sound mental faculties, and memory is certainly a part of that. You added some other useful factors as well.

[paul.trapanese]

Well my last sentence already addressed that. Was thinking of Metheny specifically when I wrote it. Maybe I'm mis-remembering, but I seem to recall that he admitted it was "wrong" but he didn't have a teacher around when he was starting, or something like that. I don't know that the other two hold a pick incorrectly, or as you might prefer "in unorthodox fashion". Do they?

Dizzy Gillespie admitted to incorrect technique. Arnold Palmer had a goofy swing.

Adaptation.

Yeah Martino held the pick in an unusual way. Like he was drinking tea with the queen! Benson rotates it in a weird way. It is adaptation but in the process it adds to the uniqueness of the individual.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk