Generic Question - How do you Improvise?

**kris** · 03-05-2023, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

It doesn't take theory or ear to play free jazz. :P

There is such a thing as totally free.
I've encountered this more than once, and you probably haven't.
Uncontrollable noise.

**mr. beaumont** · 03-05-2023, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Christian Miller

To be specific about what I mean
What - Bb Ab G F on a G7 chord. Very common phrase in bop. Intervallically b3 b2 1 b7 on G7.

How - elides neatly into the third on a C major chord. Use as the part of a Ii V I line that moves into the next chord

Why - Tensions of the G7 chord. it’s from the G altered scale? Or is it G dominant-diminished? (Make sure you have the right answer in your theory exam!)

I'm really glad you brought up this example, because I think it illustrates exactly where I'm coming from when I downplay the amount of theory one needs to play jazz (notice I say the amount of, not that you don't need any)

I think of the scalar analysis-- what scale do these notes come from?-- as theory.

I hear those notes and I hear a G blues idea (with an extra crunchy note) that leads really nice to a C major chord.

Does my explanation use theory? I suppose it does. But I don't think of it as such. And I think a player could come up with that sort of line without knowing an altered scale or whatever the other scale is that has those notes.

So that's where I'm coming from, Jimmy. Hope that makes sense.

**kris** · 03-05-2023, 10:06 AM

**ragman1** · 03-05-2023, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

But I don't think of it as such.

Exactly, it becomes part of your playing. I might think 'That needs an alt or a blues sound' but I don't ever think 'theory'.

**kris** · 03-05-2023, 12:40 PM

If someone writes a book on how to play the blues... it's probably a theory.

**John A.** · 03-05-2023, 01:15 PM

I think this entire endless debate can be distilled to two questions:

1. What did those guys play and why did they play it?
A: apply music theory to analyze and explain what they played. That “theory” might be academic music theory, history, and musicology, or via something less formal. But explanation is by definition theory.

2. What should I play?
A: could involve the application of analysis of prior music (“play this because here is why those guys did it”), or not (“play this" “why?” “because I said so. Now STFU and play”), but most likely is a bit of both. Except for Jimmy, who thinks “because I said so. Now STFU and play” is application of music theory.

As the sage said, all else is commentary.

**Peter C** · 03-05-2023, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by kris

Don't forget that there are most musicians who know the theory and are poor jazz musicians.
All theoreticians are brilliant musicians - this is not so!

Where is the artistry in all of this?

I've been making up solos since I was a young teenager. This was over (prog) rock, funk, blues and obviously mostly diatonic stuff, the only exception being modal tunes where I interspersed my lines with occasional chromatics and side-stepping tricks. It all came naturally, good thing because I was lousy (or lazy) at nailing other players' solos.

20 years ago I started listening seriously to jazz and was fascinated by how a lot of bebop players made "wrong" notes sound right. I had no real idea what they were doing harmonically, though there definitely appeared to be a method in the madness, so I sought to find out what was goin on.

I'm still on this journey because I have very little spare time to play and practise, but I have to say that the "theory" behind stuff like altered over the V in a II V I and what you can do over a I to IV change in a blues certainly make life more interesting.

Anyway, I don't personally see any sense in talking for the sake of talking and enjoy most of what you put out as a musician with innate musicality, which is what counts at the end of the day.

**kris** · 03-05-2023, 03:05 PM

Yeah....
The problem of jazz theory has already appeared in my life over 45 years ago.
The musicians I had contact with were very talented and everything came to them quickly and they were satisfied with just listening to the giants of jazz.
I was in a group looking for methods of teaching jazz because I knew that such methods were born in the USA, supported by theoretical knowledge.That's why I was one of the first to make contact with J. Aebersold. It was in the mid-70s.
I started buying books, videos, cds etc.
I stopped wandering and started practicing what is most important. I felt that I was developing.
I like practicing and testing new concepts so much that I can practice for hours with backing tracks.
It's nice to be able to play something interesting at a concert.Then I forget about theory and just play.

**grahambop** · 03-05-2023, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by kris

Then I forget about theory and just play.

Just as Mr. Parker recommended...

**ccroft** · 03-05-2023, 04:09 PM

May I give an example of a limiting and what I would call bad application of theory?

I recently watched an interview with a young sax player who said some very nasty things about an older, accomplished and highly regarded sax player and composer. At one point the young guy was asked go give an example of what he thought was wrong with the old guy's approach. He mentioned the name of a well known tune and went on to say something along the lines of:

'Take that first Dsus chord, followed by the D chord. That's not the function of a sus chord. It's just wrong. You don't use a sus like that. You can't just throw out all the long established rules. It's almost like he just sat down at a piano, played the sus and then played a random chord and thought it sounded cool.'

Speaking for myself, I'm very glad the old guy did that and I most definitely don't care why.

JIMMY: Before you get out the flame-thrower, please consider that I'm not anti-theory. Judging from your apparent age, I've spent a lot more time using it than you have, old guy that I am :-)

**rpjazzguitar** · 03-05-2023, 04:25 PM

I've studied with a player -- a name you know -- who is encyclopedic about theory.

But, if you ask him what he was thinking in a solo he just played, he can't explain it.

That's the usual response you get from great players when you ask that question.

I'd guess that he found sounds with theory in the practice room, discarded most, internalized the rest and uses the internalized sounds intuitively.

Is it possible for another player to get there without thinking about theory in linguistic terms? I'd say yes, with my usual example of Andres Varady.

**Bobby Timmons** · 03-05-2023, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by grahambop

Just as Mr. Parker recommended...

After educating yourself and practicing a lot.

**Bobby Timmons** · 03-05-2023, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

I'm really glad you brought up this example, because I think it illustrates exactly where I'm coming from when I downplay the amount of theory one needs to play jazz (notice I say the amount of, not that you don't need any)

I think of the scalar analysis-- what scale do these notes come from?-- as theory.

I hear those notes and I hear a G blues idea (with an extra crunchy note) that leads really nice to a C major chord.

Does my explanation use theory? I suppose it does. But I don't think of it as such. And I think a player could come up with that sort of line without knowing an altered scale or whatever the other scale is that has those notes.

So that's where I'm coming from, Jimmy. Hope that makes sense.

Yes that makes sense. You hear that he departs from the bluez language that he uses predominantly to throw in that bebop language. And I'm sure you can do it intuitively. I prefer to know what I'm doing. And once I learn it, it becomes intuitive. I can also call it up at another time more efficiently.

**Bobby Timmons** · 03-05-2023, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by ccroft

JIMMY: Before you get out the flame-thrower, please consider that I'm not anti-theory. Judging from your apparent age, I've spent a lot more time using it than you have, old guy that I am :-)

**Bobby Timmons** · 03-05-2023, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by Peter C

20 years ago I started listening seriously to jazz and was fascinated by how a lot of bebop players made "wrong" notes sound right. I had no real idea what they were doing harmonically, though there definitely appeared to be a method in the madness, so I sought to find out what was goin on.

I'm still on this journey because I have very little spare time to play and practice, but I have to say that the "theory" behind stuff like altered over the V in a II V I and what you can do over a I to IV change in a blues certainly make life more interesting.

I certainly think so. Glossing over beautiful concepts and chalking it all up to just winging it doesn't sit right with me.

**Bobby Timmons** · 03-05-2023, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar

Is it possible for another player to get there without thinking about theory in linguistic terms? I'd say yes, with my usual example of Andres Varady.

Sure, I think that ability probably exists in some players. However you can also get that ability alongside and because of your theory knowledge. Theory doesn't cancel it out.

**Christian Miller** · 03-05-2023, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by ccroft

May I give an example of a limiting and what I would call bad application of theory?

I recently watched an interview with a young sax player who said some very nasty things about an older, accomplished and highly regarded sax player and composer. At one point the young guy was asked go give an example of what he thought was wrong with the old guy's approach. He mentioned the name of a well known tune and went on to say something along the lines of:

'Take that first Dsus chord, followed by the D chord. That's not the function of a sus chord. It's just wrong. You don't use a sus like that. You can't just throw out all the long established rules. It's almost like he just sat down at a piano, played the sus and then played a random chord and thought it sounded cool.'

Speaking for myself, I'm very glad the old guy did that and I most definitely don't care why.

JIMMY: Before you get out the flame-thrower, please consider that I'm not anti-theory. Judging from your apparent age, I've spent a lot more time using it than you have, old guy that I am :-)

The tune in question of course being Wayne’s Yes or No, which is one of the most unique harmonic moves in jazz which is why I instantly recognised it.

I could critique a jazz player for not preparing their dissonances ‘correctly’ by the standards of c18 music and it would mean just as little as this critique.

**pauln** · 03-05-2023, 07:38 PM

I'd still like to read others' definition of note and interval.
That would help determine what people mean by theory.

**mr. beaumont** · 03-05-2023, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by pauln

I'd still like to read others' definition of note and interval.
That would help determine what people mean by theory.

Notes: pitch

Interval: space between 2 pitches

You've mentioned this twice, I wasn't sure i saw anybody define these here at all, let alone incorrectly...unless I'm missing something...

**ragman1** · 03-05-2023, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by pauln

I'd still like to read others' definition of note and interval.
That would help determine what people mean by theory.

No, it wouldn't. That's like asking for a definition of nut and bolt because it would help you understand an aeroplane.

**pauln** · 03-05-2023, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

Notes: pitch

Interval: space between 2 pitches

You've mentioned this twice, I wasn't sure i saw anybody define these here at all, let alone incorrectly...unless I'm missing something...

You are the first to do so, thanks for your courage.
Both your answers are not standard music theory.
Let's see if others wish to play before looking at it.

**mr. beaumont** · 03-05-2023, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by pauln

Both your answers are not standard music theory.
.

That's because theory is stupid, and I'm mad at it.

I'm also guessing that the music class definition of a note is simply time value, but im not sure it makes sense for this conversation...

**rpjazzguitar** · 03-05-2023, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by pauln

You are the first to do so, thanks for your courage.
Both your answers are not standard music theory.
Let's see if others wish to play before looking at it.

Am I to assume that Wes, Django, Charlie Christian, Joe Pass, Jim Hall, George Benson etc all know the correct answer?

And, if those guys don't, why is it important?

**pauln** · 03-05-2023, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar

Am I to assume that Wes, Django, Charlie Christian, Joe Pass, Jim Hall, George Benson etc all know the correct answer?

And, if those guys don't, why is it important?

Why?? Because that would help determine what people mean by theory.
Some say they know theory, practice theory, think theory, or play theory.
I don't think they are all talking about the same thing when mentioning it.

**ccroft** · 03-05-2023, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by Christian Miller

The tune in question of course being Wayne’s Yes or No, which is one of the most unique harmonic moves in jazz which is why I instantly recognised it.

I could critique a jazz player for not preparing their dissonances ‘correctly’ by the standards of c18 music and it would mean just as little as this critique.

You know your stuff Christian! I bet you even know what the correct function of a sus chord is :-)
(I sure don't, but I suppose it's a tension of sorts that wants resolution... or something.)

I was doing it anonymously as I felt a bit sqeamish bringing up the whole unfortunate incident in view of Mr. Gone's most recent transition. But the response was so ridiculous. "Random chords that sound cool? Why would you do that?!" It clearly annoyed the guy. Which is just weird.