How much of the improvised material do you truly make up on the spot?

[kris]

I do a lot of this already, but I haven't tried working through a "lines" book systematically. Maybe I'll give it a go, nothing to lose, right?

Thanks for concrete suggestions!

One more:
Try to sing heads and try to improvise using your voice.
Good Luck
Kris

[Lionelsax]

Maybe you should use a backing track that inspires the playing .
You can find them, but not too many of them.
Some time ago you found an excellent organ backing as I remember well.

Yes indeed, I use sometimes Aebersold, some are very good. I think the good ones depend of the soloist who played on it. I am sure that there is a soloist when they record the backing track then they delete his part.
I am pretty sure of that, beat variations, some mistakes, some screams, they are the best ones... But sometimes it's difficult to follow them very well.
They love rushing during the solo parts.
It sounds like live recording without the soloist.
I should work on my own backing track... But it becomes more a musical piece than an improvisation.
I like MrSunnybass, it's good and human.

[lawson-stone]

I usually record myself, very long solos, I try not to repeat myself. I listen to the recording. I analyse what's happening. I generally complain about lack of rhythmical variations (maybe because I use backing tracks). There are a lot of phrases, some nice ideas but rhythmically it's annoying.

If I didn't repeat myself I doubt I'd finish 2 choruses. Maybe not even one!

[lawson-stone]

I've heard more than once that the first take was the one that went on the final press. All subsequent were "less spontaneous" or people were trying too hard to make the next take the same but better than the last, but that spontaneity was lost.

I've heard differently at least for some famous recordings. "Donna Lee" was a false start on several takes when Charlie Parker recorded it, if memory serves. There is also a "famous solo break" Bird played that threw off his band so many times that Miles had to actually conduct the band to get it right, which wasn't for several takes. That's just a couple I've heard about.

[kris]

Yes indeed, I use sometimes Aebersold, some are very good. I think the good ones depend of the soloist who played on it. I am sure that there is a soloist when they record the backing track then they delete his part.
I am pretty sure of that, beat variations, some mistakes, some screams, they are the best ones... But sometimes it's difficult to follow them very well.
They love rushing during the solo parts.
It sounds like live recording without the soloist.
I should work on my own backing track... But it becomes more a musical piece than an improvisation.
I like MrSunnybass, it's good and human.

Look a this link...there are interesting demos:
NEW Play Along CD - JodyJazz

[mr. beaumont]

Keep in mind--repeating yourself isn't always bad...just do it INTENTIONALLY.

[AllanAllen]

I've heard more than once that the first take was the one that went on the final press. All subsequent were "less spontaneous" or people were trying too hard to make the next take the same but better than the last, but that spontaneity was lost.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way.
It might have been more like; Why do another take when the first one was good enough and you are trying to record three albums in a day.

It's doubtful that Charlie Parker thought every solo he recorded would be scrutinized for the next 100 years. It probably never entered his mind, just cut it and move on.

These records were a race against the clock get X songs done 2 hours, nothing like how things are recorded now.

[mr. beaumont]

I've heard more than once that the first take was the one that went on the final press. All subsequent were "less spontaneous" or people were trying too hard to make the next take the same but better than the last, but that spontaneity was lost.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

What I'm saying is that you'll hear even the best players take solos with a lot of similarities from take to take. This doesn't mean they weren't improvised, but players had ideas of how they want their solo to "shape up" and didn't completely start from scratch with each take.

Because they understood, in the end, the goal was to sound good.

[RunningBeagle]

I try to bring a lot of truly improvised material into my solos. Of course that means it's not always successful, or better said, perfectly optimized, but it's probably more interesting, and always more fulfilling to play.

My general approach is to impose some structure, which ironically leads to more improvisation, because you can't use your licks in the following scenarios I often utilize:

1. pick a short phrase and work it through the progression, moving as little as possible

2. pick a "direction" and play within that. Like low to high and back. Or alternating between low and high

I think the Wayne Krantz book covered some of these ideas. Maybe?

[Peter C]

The best part of improv is when you end up playing something you hadn't planned on at all.

First take is the best? Probably a myth.

[ragman1]

First take is the best? Probably a myth.

Agreed. It might have the most energy, for obvious reasons, but it might not necessarily be the most effective.

[kris]

The best part of improv is when you end up playing something you hadn't planned on at all.

First take is the best? Probably a myth.

There is a lot of truth in this.
As long as professional musicians are concerned.
Professionals are most often very well prepared before entering a recording studio.

[lawson-stone]

There is a lot of truth in this.
As long as professional musicians are concerned.
Professionals are most often very well prepared before entering a recording studio.

I have always thought that the real difference between professionals and amateurs is not mainly how well each plays, but how consistently and reliably they can provide their highest quality performance. An amateur can have a tune, or moment, or single evening of brilliance that rivals professional playing, but the next day it's gone. They might not have that kind of experience for a long time.

Professional players bring it at a consistently high level every time.

[mr. beaumont]

I have always thought that the real difference between professionals and amateurs is not mainly how well each plays, but how consistently and reliably they can provide their highest quality performance. An amateur can have a tune, or moment, or single evening of brilliance that rivals professional playing, but the next day it's gone. They might not have that kind of experience for a long time.

Professional players bring it at a consistently high level every time.

The other things pros know how to do is COVER...when confronted with a tough tune, and little time to prepare, they can use what they have to get through it and still turn in a performance that sounds good. Playing off the melody, key centers, etc.

It might not always be a "high level" performance to their ears, but they don't let the group down with a clamfest either. That's part of being a pro, in my opinion...keeping things afloat even when you're not comfortable.

[kris]

It is important for both amateurs and professionals to familiarize themselves with the music material well.
I think it helps a lot to keep the music material in the concerts before entering the recording studio.
I recorded one of my records like this ... all the first takes were good.
That was the opinion of other musicians.

[Triple_Jazz]

There are plenty of great comments here to follow for guidance. I believe there are two camps on this question, one camp highlighting the fundamentals of music approach (scales, arps) The other camp focusing on the language and the licks from the great players. I think either way you will succeed, but no one has really sites one major factor.

improvised music whether it be jazz or otherwise, can only be crafted successfully by improvising with other people. So your approach really doesn’t matter, what matters is that you get in a room with other people and have that musical conversation. Any video that you post of yourself with a backing track may sound fantastic, but try to improvise the same way with real people behind you and it will not come out the same at all. There is the Internet improviser, and the live improviser which is the type we basically reference because of the recording history. These are my views

[Marcel_A]

I have always thought that the real difference between professionals and amateurs is not mainly how well each plays, but how consistently and reliably they can provide their highest quality performance. An amateur can have a tune, or moment, or single evening of brilliance that rivals professional playing, but the next day it's gone. They might not have that kind of experience for a long time.

i don't really see how this would work.
i am an amateur and i am able to play consistently at my highest level. i am not bragging about the level, but about the consistently i am.
a pro is simply someone who is able to make money with the guitar.

a good player knows his or her level and plays material accordingly. if people want to pay for it, you might become a pro.

[kris]

a pro is simply someone who is able to make money with the guitar.

Maybe it should be so, but it's more complicated.
When it comes to jazz, I know amateurs who earn money.

[Lionelsax]

I'm a pro !

[Lionelsax]

I am a pro, Wes Montgomery was just a welder.

[kris]

If they earn enough money to make a living then they are a pro, no?

I am not sure.
Since I'm not making a lot of money playing guitar lately, I'm an amateur.

[kris]

I'm a pro !

You are a rich musician.

[kris]

A large group of musicians cannot find a job - they must be amateurs.

[Lionelsax]

You are a rich musician.

No, I think I am lucky, music is my job.
Do I deserve it ?

[rpjazzguitar]

I have the same impression as Lawson. One of the skills that separates the pro from the amateur is the ability to sound good when the planets aren't in alignment.

So, bad sound, bad stage plot, a weak player, a player who doesn't show up, a pianist playing his own idiosyncratic harmony to a standard, a singer losing the roadmap, a wedding guest singing in a random key, a badly written chart, the regular guys are playing an arrangement that isn't written down, a correct chart that's damn hard to play, the leader naming a tune you've never heard of and then saying "you'll hear it" etc etc etc.

I've noticed that every setting is a different skill set. So it's one thing to play at home. Another with friends in a jam. Another in a public jam with strangers. Another with a piano. Other instrument configurations. Charts or not? Single page or 6 pages? Hard page turns? Players being really loud. With a PA. With monitors and a soundman. Big room, big audience or small. Concert vs background music. No time to set up. No soundcheck etc etc. Every time I've played in a setting different from my usual, I had to learn something, often the hard way.

The pro makes it work no matter what.