Generic Question - How do you Improvise?

[ragman1]

should’ve gone to specsavers!

Quite right. Sorry, Tal, it's not your thread.

Dear Stim, what I said to Tal even though he didn't ask me :-)


As a matter of interest, I am intending going to Specsavers shortly as my current specs are broken. This must be one of those mysterious coincidences sent by the universe to remind me....

[Tal_175]

Dear stim, what I said to Tal even though he didn't ask me :-)

Well it was more like you said a bunch of things that had nothing to do with what I posted in response to someone else thread.

[ragman1]

Don't worry about it, just general confusion. It's been a long day

[pauln]

Moreover, there should be a simple answer to this that everyone who can improvise can tell you, yet they all seem to be saying very vague and contradictory things about the improvisation process.

Music is complex enough that by the time improvisation flows spontaneously with little apparent effort the actual mental and mechanical aspects of what's going on and how you got there are long lost within the countless hours of practicing, exploring, discovering, relating, integrating, etc.

It's only natural that the answers are vague and contradictory. In a recent thread I wrote that honestly, what it feels like to me is that I telepathically push my musical ideas to my hands, and listen carefully to confirm they produced what I wanted to hear. That is basically describing the method taught by Harold Hill in The Music Man, "The Think System"!

[Jimmy Smith]

^ That's really silly. The more proficient one becomes at music, the less able they are to explain it? That isn't true. Everything can be explained after the fact. And a lot of it comes from predetermined frameworks beforehand. Of course there are many instances where creativity is more the guiding force, but this isn't the rule as if music is all mysterious and one is better at it if they don't know what they're doing. It's a language that can be explained and taught like any spoken language. Even if many people don't understand it as such.

[Jimmy Smith]

3 comes in later when you want to know WHY something works. But generally, I don't think you need much "theory" to start out, just fundamentals--fretboard knowledge, chord shapes and arpeggios, how to build chords, etc.

You guys are mad at theory. You can also create from theory, and it's an important resource to use for creativity in jazz. It isn't only an after the fact explanation of some feral music making action.

[pauln]

^ That's really silly. The more proficient one becomes at music, the less able they are to explain it? That isn't true. Everything can be explained after the fact.

I find the more I know, the more I come to know
how much more there is to know of what I don't
know, including what I know of how I know what
I know but also what I know of how I don't know
what I don't know, yet someday I know I'll know.

[kris]

What's up with this theory...I've said that several times.
A jazz musician must be able to hear well and work on a musical workshop - be technically proficient.
The theory is not difficult to master - it can be mastered in a few months.
I'm not sure if you understood it correctly.

[Alter]

To become a good improviser is to become a good story teller. To learn how to build a solo, how to present and develop points and arguments, draw pictures and describe things..

Then specifically for the Jazz idiom, one has to learn the music and its language, which involves listening to hundreds of albums and artists, learning some chords, scales and arpeggios, working a lot on listening and interacting, and learning the theory required to make sense out of what's happening.

Lots of work, but it should be more fun than work! And it's as simple as learning a tune, learning the melody, and playing around it. Then you go from there..

[Jimmy Smith]

^ I agree. That can be tough to attack broadly. I like to listen to clips I like and try to quantify what makes them so effective and then practice integrating those specific things.

[alltunes]

It can be as simple as this:

Learn the melody
Learn how to embellish the melody

The end result will always sound good.

[Tal_175]

Music is complex enough that by the time improvisation flows spontaneously with little apparent effort the actual mental and mechanical aspects of what's going on and how you got there are long lost within the countless hours of practicing, exploring, discovering, relating, integrating, etc.

It's only natural that the answers are vague and contradictory. In a recent thread I wrote that honestly, what it feels like to me is that I telepathically push my musical ideas to my hands, and listen carefully to confirm they produced what I wanted to hear. That is basically describing the method taught by Harold Hill in The Music Man, "The Think System"!

When I improvise, there are moments when ideas are flowing and I can't explain why I play what I play. But I can clearly link these moments to how and what I practice. Most of the times new ideas aren't flowing and the link is more obvious, lol.

Improvisation is the culmination of the internalization process that is the result of all the prior musical activities. Sometimes the internalized skills result in more freedom and confidence, other times you have more habitual, often deeply buried patterns to fall back on.

My understanding of OP's question is, he is looking for a practice process that he can trust that would get him there. What I mean by "contradictory and vague process" in the post you quoted (which I should've worded better), is musicians descriptions of their practice path, not what they are thinking when they improvise (which is much harder to elaborate).

[Tal_175]

It's fun, not work. And it's easy (at whatever level of musicianship and knowledge you happen to be at). You just have to do it. What can be hard, and can seem like work because it involves structure and repetition is improving your level of musicianship and increasing your knowledge. But if it feels like drudgery, there's something wrong with your approach.

I worked a lot on fretboard internalization over the years to develop a unified view of single lines and chord voicings across the fretboard. It's been fun but it has also involved a lot of hours of disciplined work (and still does to a lesser extend).

This is the approach where you put in a lot of work early on and increasingly reap the benefits later on. The earlier hard work allows you to have easier access to musical possibilities, variations, applications etc on your instrument with very little mental effort. That's when the musical development grows more efficiently and the process is more fun. Maybe there is a way to amortize that dry, hard work more gradually but it's harder to come up with a reliable practice plan that works that way.

[ragman1]

It becomes fun when you achieve some fluency. And even that's not guaranteed :-)

[mr. beaumont]

You guys are mad at theory. You can also create from theory, and it's an important resource to use for creativity in jazz. It isn't only an after the fact explanation of some feral music making action.

Ah, with the mad at theory thing again. I'm not mad at theory at all. I just don't think it's a prerequisite to being able to play jazz. Nor does it take any kind of precedent over listening, copying, assimilating, tunes....

Of course, there's things people call theory that I don't think are "theoretical" at all. Fretboard knowledge isn't theory. I don't think there's anything "theoretical" about scales or building chords either, but maybe some folks do.

I'll say it again...almost ALL of the time the song itself gives you all the information you need.

[Tal_175]

Maybe we should come up with a less divisive name than "theory" for a certain category of musical knowledge, lol.

I remember seeing an Anderton's video where Lee holds a common dominant 13 (drop3) voicing and says something along the lines of "Someone showed me this chord, I have no idea what it is but I like it". Then Chapman looks over to see what shape Lee is holding but he has no idea what it is either. Not only they don't know what the chord is called but clearly (and more importantly) don't know how each note in a grip relates to the chord intervallically either (which note is the third, seventh, "6"th etc).

Now, I'm not saying this type of knowledge is necessary to be a good musician blah, blah. I'm just being agnostic about it for the sake of this discussion. But this is the sort of musical and instrumental knowledge with take for granted on this forum. Most musicians seem to consider this type of knowledge theory. Maybe we should call this type of thing "applied musical knowledge" going forward because I think most of the theory debate on the forum is about the semantics.

[Victor Saumarez]

I agree with the above answers, but would add memorizing and recall as two separate things. You could learn a 100 licks, but not be able to use (recall) them in real time. Common problem. Some claim they hear the lick just before they play it.

To avoid your playing sounding like regurgitated licks, it might be useful to do a little planning, or mapping out beforehand. To me a good solo is a contrast between high notes and low notes, rhythmical contrast, dynamic contrast, having melodic highpoints, a beginning, climax, and end.

A device I use to connect all the dots (literally the frets) is visual. Often, recall comes from being in a particular location on the fret board. An idea begins in proximity to where the previous one ends, while being conscious of the above. There is nothing wrong with playing at the bottom of the neck and then leaping to the top if you're going for contrast, but if it's because the only lick you can recall is making you do it ...well, may be a little more prep is needed.

[mr. beaumont]

I agree with the above answers, but would add memorizing and recall as two separate things. You could learn a 100 licks, but not be able to use (recall) them in real time. Common problem. Some claim they hear the lick just before they play it.

To avoid your playing sounding like regurgitated licks, it might be useful to do a little planning, or mapping out beforehand. To me a good solo is a contrast between high notes and low notes, rhythmical contrast, dynamic contrast, having melodic highpoints, a beginning, climax, and end.

A device I use to connect all the dots (literally the frets) is visual. Often, recall comes from being in a particular location on the fret board. An idea begins in proximity to where the previous one ends, while being conscious of the above. There is nothing wrong with playing at the bottom of the neck and then leaping to the top if you're going for contrast, but if it's because the only lick you can recall is making you do it ...well, may be a little more prep is needed.

I think the trick is in making sure they're not truly licks, they're "ideas." They're malleable. Like "This is something I can play over a V-I, but I can make it be 4 beats, or 6, or whatever..."

Trying to pull up exact licks is a recipe for disaster, because if you make a mistake, you've painted yourself into a bit of a corner...

The other thing I always think about is listening to the alternate takes on classic jazz albums...you'll often hear some similarities in solos. Improvising doesn't mean you can't go in with a plan.

[John A.]

I worked a lot on fretboard internalization over the years to develop a unified view of single lines and chord voicings across the fretboard. It's been fun but it has also involved a lot of hours of disciplined work (and still does to a lesser extend).

This is the approach where you put in a lot of work early on and increasingly reap the benefits later on. The earlier hard work allows you to have easier access to musical possibilities, variations, applications etc on your instrument with very little mental effort. That's when the musical development grows more efficiently and the process is more fun. Maybe there is a way to amortize that dry, hard work more gradually but it's harder to come up with a reliable practice plan that works that way.

What I said specifically is that learning to improvise is neither hard nor work. Thinking that it's hard work and requires all sorts of prerequisites before you can begin improvising just seems entirely wrong to me. Any musician above a pretty minimal skill and knowledge set can improvise. The output may not be great and/or may be rudimentary. But the act of improvising and improving one's improvisation through repetition and experiment is not difficult and is not work.

Acquiring the skill and knowledge it takes to get better technically and creatively requires time and structure and can pose challenges. But I sincerely do not experience that as work, and hesitate to use words like "discipline" because that makes it seems like toil and punishment. I can practice/play/study for almost endless hours and not feel the time passing or any desire to stop, which I cannot say for any of the other activities I do that actually are work. I think that's close to a universal attitude among people who stick with jazz (or any form of music, TBH). If it feels like toil, something is wrong.

[Victor Saumarez]

I think the trick is in making sure they're not truly licks, they're "ideas." They're malleable. Like "This is something I can play over a V-I, but I can make it be 4 beats, or 6, or whatever..."

Trying to pull up exact licks is a recipe for disaster, because if you make a mistake, you've painted yourself into a bit of a corner...

The other thing I always think about is listening to the alternate takes on classic jazz albums...you'll often hear some similarities in solos. Improvising doesn't mean you can't go in with a plan.

I am open on this whole subject of improvisation and licks. I'm just a hack and am too old to have anything to prove. If I can help out anyone that's starting out, great! I agree being able to play with your licks adds an element of improvisation. But the way I see it is to do that you'd need to know them pretty well, so 'making a mistake' seems not only remote, but not out of bounds in jazz anyway. Moreover, covering up mistakes is improvisation as well.

Yes, you'll sometimes hear solo performances being closely repeated on different nights. That's if you can get away with it and your band leader is tolerant of it. Interestingly, on the recent Wes documentary he openly admits to playing Charlie Christian solos on gigs when he was younger. I reckon this was more common than we think.

[John A.]

It becomes fun when you achieve some fluency. And even that's not guaranteed :-)

My experience is the reverse of this. Improvisation is fun immediately (I have some very specific memories of this from before I had any concept that jazz). The feeling of fun is the incentive for gaining fluency.

[Tal_175]

I can practice/play/study for almost endless hours and not feel the time passing or any desire to stop, which I cannot say for any of the other activities I do that actually are work. I think that's close to a universal attitude among people who stick with jazz (or any form of music, TBH). If it feels like toil, something is wrong.

I was more able to play endlessly all day many years ago before I took guitar seriously but I don't think I was improving much.
Some of the skills that helped me the most (working on different time feels, rhythmic independence, working on application of concepts on different part of the guitar, internalizing fretboard, learning difficult progressions etc. etc.) actually require a lot of concentration and can get exhausting after an hour. These are also the types of things you don't get rewarded for immediately. That's the part that requires drive and discipline. Because you need to work on them regularly with a concentrated affort and gradually develop the skills. But being driven and disciplined in order to develop a skill at a high level is a blast.

Maybe all these skills came effortlessly to you but I know many good musicians also worked this way and still do. I think Bruce Forman said that when he "really" practiced, he could only do it for a short amount of time.

[mr. beaumont]

Yes, you'll sometimes hear solo performances being closely repeated on different nights. That's if you can get away with it and your band leader is tolerant of it. Interestingly, on the recent Wes documentary he openly admits to playing Charlie Christian solos on gigs when he was younger. I reckon this was more common than we think.

Yes, I get that, but it's also not really what I'm talking about.

A solo has like, a shape to it. And you can have that in your head as a preconceived notion. It's not playing a similar solo note wise, or someone else's solo, or like that...it's more like a map, if that makes sense?

Or the song itself is the cities and counties and stuff, and your solo is the roads...there's different roads to get to the same place but you might still want to stop in St. Louis for lunch on your way to Tulsa...

Or analogies are stupid.

[ragman1]

My experience is the reverse of this. Improvisation is fun immediately (I have some very specific memories of this from before I had any concept that jazz). The feeling of fun is the incentive for gaining fluency.

There's being able to improvise and there's thinking you can improvise. For those who just want 'fun' I suppose anything will do. For the more serious it's hard work.

I think maybe we're using the word fun in different ways.

[AllanAllen]

There's being able to improvise and there's thinking you can improvise. For those who just want 'fun' I suppose anything will do. For the more serious it's hard work.

I think maybe we're using the word fun in different ways.

John A is very much able to improvise. He's one of the real players who hangs out here.