Generic Question - How do you Improvise?

[rpjazzguitar]

Some sort of 4/4 "All Blues"? Honestly, the notation doesn't bother me all that much. For me, it matters more that a line agrees with itself more than if it agrees with the chord symbol. Looking at the first two measures, I see a clear Ab7-A7 idea spelled out, then in the second half of the second measure, it feels like the start of a blues phrase in G rather than an altered line on D7, and notating a blues tonic is always a little up for grabs between #4,b5,#9,b3 etc...

PK

Good point. If the chord symbols were Ab7 to A7, the melody would make more sense. But, the chord symbols are instead the tritone subs.

[Christian Miller]

Attachment 99628

We have Fairy liquid here m8

[Christian Miller]

Good point. If the chord symbols were Ab7 to A7, the melody would make more sense. But, the chord symbols are instead the tritone subs.

in seriousness I find it just makes it hard to read.

but yeah, fair enough. It’s a matter of convention really. What do you have as the chord symbol and what do you have as the notated pitches? The originals or the subs.

@palkogut it is All Blues. The music is notated in 6/4 for some reason. Not sure why.

[paulkogut]

Fair enough. It's probably worth its own thread to discuss how we notate things when the line of the moment doesn't agree with the changes to the tune. Perhaps you'd want to write something differently if intended for study/analysis than sight-reading/performance...

PK

[rpjazzguitar]

I don't know enough theory to be very troubled by seeing a C# which some Professor knows should be a Db.

And, it happens often enough, including situations where the software transposes things funny, that it's worth getting used to.

That said, I like lines to be easy to read. The "correct" way may not be the easiest to read for me, anyway. I don't want to see E# or Dbb. I also don't want to see a lot of quick notes, all of which have accidentals, if it can be avoided.

Last night I had to read, sight unseen, a chart with horn type lines for the guitar in F (prominently featured of course) which abruptly went into the key of Gb and which notated an A natural as a B double flat. I imagine the Professor being happier than I was.

When I write, I tend to go in accordance with my own reading idiosyncracies. That is, I write it so that I can read it most easily. I have learned that others may be bothered by what looks good to me, so I'm trying to develop better habits.

[Christian Miller]

Fair enough. It's probably worth its own thread to discuss how we notate things when the line of the moment doesn't agree with the changes to the tune. Perhaps you'd want to write something differently if intended for study/analysis than sight-reading/performance...

PK

Stop undermining my rants with perfectly reasonable points

[Christian Miller]

I don't know enough theory to be very troubled by seeing a C# which some Professor knows should be a Db.

And, it happens often enough, including situations where the software transposes things funny, that it's worth getting used to.

That said, I like lines to be easy to read. The "correct" way may not be the easiest to read for me, anyway. I don't want to see E# or Dbb. I also don't want to see a lot of quick notes, all of which have accidentals, if it can be avoided.

Last night I had to read, sight unseen, a chart with horn type lines for the guitar in F (prominently featured of course) which abruptly went into the key of Gb and which notated an A natural as a B double flat. I imagine the Professor being happier than I was.

When I write, I tend to go in accordance with my own reading idiosyncracies. That is, I write it so that I can read it most easily. I have learned that others may be bothered by what looks good to me, so I'm trying to develop better habits.

I think my general approach would be minimise the symbols as much as possible. For that reason I don’t care for the common jazz convention of not writing a key signature when the music is resonantly key based (as seen in the Omnibook) as Parker’s lines look cleaner when written out with a key signature.

this isn’t true of all jazz tunes or all jazz soloists (Coltrane maybe) and in this case it may be sensible to use a null key sig

in terms of use of sharps and flats - and this isn’t the case for the example I gave in fact - is using the wrong accidental means you need another symbol counteracting it and so on. So observing the alphabet rule as much as possible for instance reduces this cluttering effect on the whole. (For less diatonic music this stuff varies on a case to case basis.) That is something I see a lot in home brew charts and it is off putting: but it’s probably good to get used to reading them lol.

it’s like Bellson where it starts of honouring the invisible bar line rule and by the bottom of the page you are thinking ‘who would write this rhythm way????’

in terms of double flats and sharps - these are perfectly normal for professional classical musicians used to dealing with them. Because jazzers don’t do enharmony very well, they are less familiar so I think we just aren’t used to them. I’m not great with them either so despite my OCD theory misgivings I’d probably avoid them. See also tenor clef for trombone… and writing charts for saxophone in funny keys. Egad.

[Christian Miller]

The other thing is for non 12 tone ET (equal tempered) instruments like voice and strings a Cx (C##) maybe a little different from a D. In general the first note will be a lower neighbour note to a D#, for instance in the key of B major or G#m for example.

Conversely a double flat suggests a chromatic melodic descent by half step, so for instance Ebb in the key of Gb descending to the note Db (for instance in a Cbm>Gb progression which jazzers would probably write Bm —> Gb. Yuk*.)

experienced choral singers and string players then may pitch that note differently from ET based on its melodic function from audiating the phrase; perhaps Cx maybe slightly higher than D and so on.

these are all obvious melodic moves you see a lot in tonal music and it makes sense to have similar musical phrases look similar for G major and Gb major or Bb major and B major to ease readability and ‘hearing’ in that sense. So in fact as much as we may hate bb’s and x’s they are helpful for readability for those who are used to them.

It’s the sort of thing my missus talks about sometimes - she plays cello and sung professionally in choirs.

This is the sort of thing that is more relevant for Bach or Mozart than for Poulenc (which is more ET). Jazz and blues has its own microtonal nuances, but modern jazz it seems to me is built around the possibilities of ET, unlike Bach or even Mozart.

all of which is lost on us non-bending guitar players haha

*but also sad to say I would find easier to read

[paulkogut]

Stop undermining my rants with perfectly reasonable points

Sorry. I forgot for a moment that this was the internet....

PK

[pauln]

in terms of double flats and sharps - these are perfectly normal for professional classical musicians used to dealing with them. Because jazzers don’t do enharmony very well, they are less familiar so I think we just aren’t used to them. I’m not great with them either so despite my OCD theory misgivings I’d probably avoid them.

The wonderful magic of enharmonic theoretical keys is that
you are always playing within them even when you are not!

............Key.................Key signature.........Relative key

Fb major (E major)..........8 flats..........Db minor (C# minor)
Bbb major (A major)........9 flats.........Gb minor (F# minor)
Ebb major (D major)......10 flats.........Cb minor (B minor)
Abb major (G major)......11 flats.........Fb minor (E minor)
Dbb major (C major)......12 flats.........Bbb minor (A minor)
Gbb major (F major)......13 flats.........Ebb minor (D minor)
Cbb major (Bb major)....14 flats.........Abb minor (G minor)
G# major (Ab major)........8 sharps.....E# minor (F minor)
D# major (Eb major)........9 sharps.....B# minor (C minor)
A# major (Bb major)......10 sharps.....F## minor (G minor)
E# major (F major).........11 sharps.....C## minor (D minor)
B# major (C major)........12 sharps.....G## minor (A minor)
F## major (G major)......13 sharps.....D## minor (E minor)
C## major (D major)......14 sharps.....A## minor (B minor)

[Christian Miller]

The wonderful magic of enharmonic theoretical keys is that
you are always playing within them even when you are not!

............Key.................Key signature.........Relative key

Fb major (E major)..........8 flats..........Db minor (C# minor)
Bbb major (A major)........9 flats.........Gb minor (F# minor)
Ebb major (D major)......10 flats.........Cb minor (B minor)
Abb major (G major)......11 flats.........Fb minor (E minor)
Dbb major (C major)......12 flats.........Bbb minor (A minor)
Gbb major (F major)......13 flats.........Ebb minor (D minor)
Cbb major (Bb major)....14 flats.........Abb minor (G minor)
G# major (Ab major)........8 sharps.....E# minor (F minor)
D# major (Eb major)........9 sharps.....B# minor (C minor)
A# major (Bb major)......10 sharps.....F## minor (G minor)
E# major (F major).........11 sharps.....C## minor (D minor)
B# major (C major)........12 sharps.....G## minor (A minor)
F## major (G major)......13 sharps.....D## minor (E minor)
C## major (D major)......14 sharps.....A## minor (B minor)

No thank you

[rpjazzguitar]

The other thing is for non 12 tone ET (equal tempered) instruments like voice and strings a Cx (C##) maybe a little different from a D. In general the first note will be a lower neighbour note to a D#, for instance in the key of B major or G#m for example.

Conversely a double flat suggests a chromatic melodic descent by half step, so for instance Ebb in the key of Gb descending to the note Db (for instance in a Cbm>Gb progression which jazzers would probably write Bm —> Gb. Yuk*.)

experienced choral singers and string players then may pitch that note differently from ET based on its melodic function from audiating the phrase; perhaps Cx maybe slightly higher than D and so on.

these are all obvious melodic moves you see a lot in tonal music and it makes sense to have similar musical phrases look similar for G major and Gb major or Bb major and B major to ease readability and ‘hearing’ in that sense. So in fact as much as we may hate bb’s and x’s they are helpful for readability for those who are used to them.

It’s the sort of thing my missus talks about sometimes - she plays cello and sung professionally in choirs.

This is the sort of thing that is more relevant for Bach or Mozart than for Poulenc (which is more ET). Jazz and blues has its own microtonal nuances, but modern jazz it seems to me is built around the possibilities of ET, unlike Bach or even Mozart.

all of which is lost on us non-bending guitar players haha

*but also sad to say I would find easier to read

If I saw a B grazing by itself in a forest glade at dusk, I would suspect sharps lurking in the tree line.

[DonEsteban]

How to improvise?

Tell me a story... something that involves you as a kid... may be winter... maybe not... go on tell me....

I listen ....

Start now.....

That's how you improvise.

[kris]

I have 50 books on theory and I'm very mad that I can't finish reading them.
...but is it necessary since I already have a lot of knowledge?

[omphalopsychos]

I read this whole thread this week in downtime between things. Totally cured my fomo about this subforum.

[AaronMColeman]

I read this whole thread this week in downtime between things. Totally cured my fomo about this subforum.

I loved music theory, until we started talking about it (actually I love it anyway, this kind of talk is tiring though).

When I was young I played in punk bands where we would tell the drummer to hold a little riff f4 beat riff for 4 measures. He'd always say "I don't like to count" then in shows we'd play the same riff forever until he moved on. Theory can start with counting...so punk drummers need music theory.

I'm going to pick up my guitar and just play a bunch of ii-V-I with extensions and pretend I know music theory. I may even count out a few beats and pull out the metronome. I think that's music theory right?

[AaronMColeman]

I heard an interesting pod cast talking about "echo chambers" vs what he called "idea labs" vs internet arguments. Echo chamber is all of us patting eachother on the back and agreeing to gang up on anyone who disagrees slightly. Internet arguments are both sides being 100% convinced they're right with no intention of learning what the other side is saying. Idea labs are places with rigorous debate, sometimes heated, but where everyone involved is trying to learn and grow. I like that idea, and typically this forum is more idea lab in nature. I've learned a ton from listening to you guys, thank you.

[Christian Miller]

If I saw a B grazing by itself in a forest glade at dusk, I would suspect sharps lurking in the tree line.

and then the sax players run off shrieking

[kris]

Sometimes I wonder why some people avoid playing in fast tempos. Maybe they have a head full of theory and they don't have time to choose the right note.

...or maybe there are theoretic musicians and practical musicians - and that's it.

I'm just theorizing that.
Interestingly, there are musicians who play fast phrases without having any idea about the theory.
Is theoretical knowledge necessary to master playing fast, e.g. the C major scale...?

[kris]

clint or jimmy smith,
Why are you manipulating my statements in another thread about theory?
You don't understand my thoughts and write nonsense.

[Bobby Timmons]

You write nonsense. Theory prevents people from playing well? It's the opposite. The only thing that prevents people from playing well is if they don't develop the area that they are lacking. If they can't hear the idea, they need to develop their ear. If they can't play fast, they need to develop the technical skills. If they're just wanking to a backing track, they need to understand the theory better and play that correctly. Theory doesn't prevent you from developing any 1 area, only you prevent yourself from doing that.

[kris]

You write nonsense. Theory prevents people from playing well? It's the opposite. The only thing that prevents people from playing well is if they don't develop the area that they are lacking. If they can't hear the idea, they need to develop their ear. If they can't play fast, they need to develop the technical skills. If they're just wanking to a backing track, they need to understand the theory better and play that correctly. Theory doesn't prevent you from developing any 1 area, only you prevent yourself from doing that.

Man, I know a lot more theories than you think.
You're obsessed with the word "theory", and that's your problem.
You can't understand my way of thinking and you're not being nice.
I won't say anything about your guitar playing because I've never heard of it.
Don't take my sentences out of context because that's very rude, OK...
A little respect for a musician with great achievements.

[kris]

Sometimes I wonder why some people play so fast but seem to have nothing to say behind those flurries of notes. Maybe filling the space with notes is such a high priority they don't have the mindfulness to make a statement.

I totally get your sentiment, and the counter argument. They are the two sides that keep me practicing so hard even after all these years.

In the end, a good player has a balance of both, but we might be understanding that until we achieve a balance, it's not soup yet. That takes time.
Patience.

There is such a low level of discussion by jimmy s. that it's sad.
There is such a thing as playing the so-called. mechanical.
And sometimes I use it too. I don't think about theory, I just want to fit in time.
Unfortunately, some musicians don't understand this because they haven't tried to play fast.
Then you play what you have under your fingers and intriguing things come out.

[Bobby Timmons]

Kris, you're lying for superiority. I'm not going to concede to your bs. I'm not obsessed with theory, I'm obsessed with how the pros conduct themselves. It's not wanking off to a 1 chord backing track. It's getting the material under their fingers which involves theory, as well as sensitivity to the music and experience. You accuse me of being rude but you treat me worse! All I want to do is discuss truth about this great music and breed good will. If I bring up theory, you start getting personal and making up nonsense how I don't get practical or ear approaches to the music and I'm a beginner. I spent plenty of time playing a single note instrument and using my ear exclusively in college. It doesn't interest me any more. Why don't you try playing a standard solo at the beastly tempo of 120 and see how far you get if you have to include bass and harmony at points in addition to melody.

[princeplanet]

I heard an interesting pod cast talking about "echo chambers" vs what he called "idea labs" vs internet arguments. Echo chamber is all of us patting eachother on the back and agreeing to gang up on anyone who disagrees slightly. Internet arguments are both sides being 100% convinced they're right with no intention of learning what the other side is saying. Idea labs are places with rigorous debate, sometimes heated, but where everyone involved is trying to learn and grow. I like that idea, and typically this forum is more idea lab in nature. I've learned a ton from listening to you guys, thank you.

I'm glad you think this, despite the fact that things around here do occasionally get a bit "echo chamber-y" at times...