-
Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
I agree with your memorizing 10 basic tunes... why, because the things that occur in other standards are the Forms and Harmonic patterns within those Forms.
I think I've posted some standards with great melodies...and reharmonized or changed the chords and tonal implications... most don't even recognize the melodies... So while melodies imply harmony, harmony can also imply a melody.... they're both going on.
At some point... we need to get past the what's most important part of etc... most instructions are just someones beliefs of how to get past the learning stages of developing musicianship. Start playing standards in different keys, different times and feels. You'll see what you need work on as far as memorizing tunes.... or taking that perfect solo, or is it the instrument taking that perfect solo.
This was Princes thread... I think.
-
12-12-2019 02:38 PM
-
Originally Posted by Reg
I'm not AGAINST learning chords. Duh. But I think a chords-first approach (and lots of guitar teachers do it that way) is one reason so many soloists sound like they're "playing the changes"--because that's all they are doing--rather than improvising on the tune. Armstrong and Miles were great at the latter. (I think Miles grew bored with the former and that's why he moved away from bebop; Armstrong never embraced bebop yet was a great soloist.)
The melody of a standard is the only part that is exclusive to it. That's the only thing you can play that shows you are playing THAT tune and not some other one. That's the only thing you can play by itself and people can know you are playing THAT tune. Thousands of tunes have blues changes, and hundreds (if not thousands) have rhythm changes, but you only know "Oleo" or "Lester Leaps In" if you know the head, and if you'd solo the same way over both, you're not doing it right. ;o)
No big dispute. Everybody tracks music the way that suits them. The longer you play a tune, the more things you can do with it. (If nothing else, you get bored doing it the same old way and try something else.)
The only time I'm thinking about what the chord changes are (-or what the next chord is) is when I *don't* have a tune down.
-
Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
Those "like/dislike" matters are so obvious that we don't even think about it. So it evades the reasoning sometimes even when a "like/dislike" issue would be the main thing in a topic. Took me 15 years of teaching to really start respecting people's likes and dislikes.
-
LOL did I say chords are the tune. I thought I said you need all of the Tune.
What do you when someone else is soloing or playing the head.
Rhythm changes are different for oleo and lester leaps in, right. Don't changes, rhythm and melodies all get developed... or is improve just for the melody.
So I'm trying to go with you mark... so I can easily play all of Bruce's podcast list, hell probably in all keys... so now I should be able to play any melody someone calls. Or is there something about those melodies that will help me remember other melodies. Standard patterns... kind of like when I sight read... I recognize melodic patterns, just like I recognize rhythmic patterns which lets me see ahead of what I'm actually playing. So all melodies should somehow be able to come from the basic or standard 10. Maybe.
And yea... guitar players generally don't know or play melodies that well... but I would say the same for changes, hell I would even go further.... most guitarist suck at comping. I'm going nowhere...
When someone throws new tune or arrangement to perform... how long does it take to memorize... or be able to play.
Personally usually one time through... if they have chart, 1st time. So I can usually get away from the chart after that 1st time through... if the head is tricky, may still have to read head out... So am I not playing the tune or the melody, or changes if I need to check out chart... but what if I need to stare at the guitar while playing. Is it like starring at the fretboard is OK but starring at a Chart isn't... what is memorization.Last edited by Reg; 12-13-2019 at 12:51 AM.
-
Originally Posted by vintagelove
-
Originally Posted by Eric Dolphy
-
Originally Posted by Reg
Your description of tune learning on the spot reminds me of this artist learning a tune in real time, one that is not in his typical wheelhouse, yet he adapts and thrives.
-
LOL yea... not a bad rhythm section... They're all amazing musicians. Chick was an amazing standard player in his early days, Lenny and Victor... can just play anything anytime, and at the highest level. JM is always just JM, can't help but love him, even if you don't like his music. thanks for post.
Victor's eyes must be going ... that stand is way up.
-
Originally Posted by Reg
Memorizing the changes to "I Got Rhythm" (or "Stella" whatever) is just that, memorizing, not remembering. You have to know those things to play a tune but it's not really musical memory. Though this develops---one can hear a turnaround or a modulation or a descending bass line even if one doesn't know the names for those things. As one improves (IF one improves, one can hear larger chunks and know recall them later by simply hearing them in one's head.)
I think this is why Barney Kessel wanted beginning students to pick out folk songs in single notes. What he called "tunes you've known all your life." (Not the same for everyone but everyone has some.) We all remember these tunes with no effort at all. For me, "I've Been Working On The Railroad" (-which I always recall when playing Horace Silver's "The Preacher"), "Frosty the Snowman", "When the Saints Go Marching In", "Jesus Loves Me", "Summertime", etc. We just hear them in our heads. That's the best place to start, with things you already know. Build out from there.
When I was in seminary, we sang the "Salve Regina" acapella. I have no idea what the chords to that are. I didn't learn it from a lead sheet. I learned it from hearing other people sing it. (I wasn't raised Catholic, either, so it's not something I heard as a kid.) I've sung it in public many times and I couldn't tell you what key we were in. I never thought about it that way. I couldn't "comp" for that at all. ;o)
For that mater, I don't know all the chords to some songs I have written! I know what I play but I don't know the names of everything, and a lot of two-note things could be conceived several ways, depending on one's POV. My POV was always "yeah, I like that sound, that stays."
This thread isn't about performance or improv or analysis. It's about memory. The tune is what everyone remembers about a tune. Duh!
-
One thing that still bugs me. The like/dislike comment earlier there.
I played Stella for ages without actually liking the piece. And was in trouble all the time. Although my memory now works better with chords, I've never grown to like it. And are never been able
to produce a nice solo on it. It's doesn't have anything to do with the memory there. I have it memorized but I believe deep down that the tune sucks. For soloing, not that it's a bad piece by itself. I don't like the chords for soloing, hence my solos on top of it suck. I mean, there is no way to convince anybody (myself this time) that I like something if it's not the truth.
And why it bugs me - those people there with rapid development in a very young age. There is some comments about their skills, some astonishment etc. But only a couple of times they actually cared to quote the parents how they got so far. Turns out, they had been extremely engaged with the subject. One 3-year-old sneaked out at nights to play piano. Another parent told me that his son risked his life and climbed up the shelves to grab some CDs at 5. Anyway - being engaged is the key. Talent is one thing, engagement boosts it tenfold. When we get older, we take it like work. Too serious, too systematic. Never happy enough.
Ok, have fun there
-
Originally Posted by emanresu
-
Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
Some hear, remember, memorize, at very different levels. Like Beethoven and Mozart who were said to hear it all in their head, melody, harmony, intrumentation. The way they would memorize is very different than the way I would memorize.
I have a friend who I am going to send one of my native american flutes to. I played over the phone the open note of each and he said that ones an F# and the other ones an E. I checked, he was right. I've been in the car when a tune was playing on the radio and I said nice chord progression right there, he said Gm6 to Dmaj. He remembers and recognizes chord progression the way I remember melodies, probably better though. Ask him to play the chords to any familar popular tune (last one was "Frosty the Snowman") and he does it on piano, guitar, mandolin... just about as fluently as he can sing a melody. For that matter he doesn't have to play it he can just recite the chords by remembering the tune. Same with melodies, he can sing it or he can just recite the notes without singing it. I'm convinced he remembers chords the same way I remember melodies. And he says he doesn't have perfect pitch which is something that I can't make sense of.
-
Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
Unfortunately it's questions and wonderings - while probably sincere and well intended - are quite sophomoric. (sorry Princeplanet).
And of course memory, conditioning, knowledge, constant practice etc. are all involved in jazz improvisation just as they are in any other challenging, skill-based endeavor.
If one thinks it's all about memory, then perform a double-blind study to prove it. Take musicians of average and good memory in addition to those with exceptional memory. Is the second group almost always better at playing improvised jazz solos? How do we explain great historical jazzers who were dropouts, struggled with language and writing, knew next to nothing about science and math, yet blew everyone else away? They had great memory huh? That would not seem likely.
So what else could be going on? I think some answers lie in the OP's first paragraph. If I remember correctly.Last edited by Jazzstdnt; 12-13-2019 at 11:09 PM.
-
The greats we celebrate here possess and express what I think of as 'ineffable musicality.'
I can not productively go beyond that, 'cept maybe to listen some more.
Thanks, nice thread.
-
Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
Memory in the brain.. say we have a billion cells of memory in the brain (there is more of course but whatever). I believe that would mean we have 1 billion multicore processors instead. The memory cells are like CPUs themselves. That's far from a science but think about it: in the morning, when we get rapid flood of "things to do" - this has to mean that those memories are fighting for attention. We dont have a central CPU in the brain that calls for a memory. All the memories are ACTIVE, with some "emotional" charge. Well, doesn't have to be even in quotes.
So, if some memory unit has more charge, it can propose itself (and will do so) when there is a need.. when it feels it is needed. And if too much, bubbles up when it is not needed even. If it doesn't have much of that, it would feel like mere suggestion. Therefore, we must pack a say, a C9 chord with all kinds of positive musical emotions and it will jump up whenever such is needed.
Yeah, that's hippie science!
-
Originally Posted by emanresu
-
Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
But I like your idea to do a double-blind study, perhaps we can offer some examples (they don't have to be our own) where you can tell us which soloists are relying on memory for the greater part of their "improvisations", and which ones aren't. I'd find that pretty interesting. Thanks for offering to instruct us!
-
Originally Posted by Zina
-
Originally Posted by emanresu
And so what?
-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
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).
-
Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
I sometimes watch with amusement how it drops after a while. If its maxed all the time with every person, this thread would not exist - then there would not be any elephants. People would do&play what they want because there would be no "memory issues".
That's of course only my opinion, as anything I've posted here.
-
OK. Well I guess I would sum up my thoughts on the topic as follows. Cheers.
Baseline factors.
- A solid facility on one’s instrument – capable, but not necessarily virtuosic
- Basic musical talent – a decent ear and modest creative ability
- 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.)
- Keeping one’s practicing and rehearsal routines in shape (i.e. frequent and focused)
- Experience playing a lot of songs at “the performance level”
- A simple compositional form (i.e. less than or equal to 32 bars, repeated over and over)
- Average to above average intelligence (yes, including a good memory)
- 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.
Summary:
We’ve all read and heard the anecdotal testimony and legendary tales of “jazz icon X” who practiced “double shifts” daily, perhaps for years, and who maintained a high level of practice (which is to say – a high level of conditioning).
And we easily observe that the more we practice the better we get, the easier our performance gets, and the better we memorize material.
So, when a jazz master knocks one out of the park, should we say – “gee what a great memory he has!”???
Not in my opinion. I think we would more reasonably say;
“you possess exceptional talent, you’ve mastered the fundamentals and repertoire, and YOU PRACTICE AND DRILL LIKE YOUR LIFE AND LIVELIHOOD DEPEND ON IT”.Last edited by Jazzstdnt; 12-14-2019 at 03:06 PM.
-
Musical memory is super important. Improv isn’t always totally new stuff. It’s more taking parts of lines memorized and reconnecting them in unique ways rhythmically, dynamically and time wise in real time. Hopefully with feeling.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
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.
-
Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
All guitarists might try this occasionally to humble any lofty ideas that their playing is "cerebral" (or that all their shortcomings are due to it not being sufficiently so).
Transcriber wanted
Today, 04:35 PM in Improvisation