Generic Question - How do you Improvise?

[ragman1]

it really depends how you define theory so I’ll be more specific. Here are some opinions:

I don't do opinions.

The two basic definitions of theory are 'a set of ideas formulated to explain something'. The other is 'a statement or statements of the principles of a subject'. (OED)

The question is, when we're discussing music, whether we mean statements of principles or a set of ideas. The problem with ideas, not being fact, is that they always produce counter-ideas which inevitably leads to dispute.

Whereas if we merely mean principles then, musically, they're pretty well set and tested.

[kris]

I don't do opinions.

The two basic definitions of theory are 'a set of ideas formulated to explain something'. The other is 'a statement or statements of the principles of a subject'. (OED)

The question is, when we're discussing music, whether we mean statements of principles or a set of ideas. The problem with ideas is that they always produce counter-ideas which inevitably leads to dispute.

Whereas if we merely mean principles then, musically, they're pretty well set and tested.

You can also practice the guitar only theoretically.

[Christian Miller]

'a set of ideas formulated to explain something'.

Thats very much the definition I use!

my argument is the explanation aspect is much less important to musicians, and it kind of creeps in, the dreaded ‘why’ questions (I have a 5yo and 2yo daughter haha.)

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!)

As a teacher it’s kind of the third question which can get you into the woods a bit. I don’t dispute it might be useful to think about that stuff to develop the phrase into other things but it’s not necessary to apply and hear the phrase.

hope that makes sense of some sort.

classical and academic theory (and musicology) gets really into the woods on the ‘why’ stuff. I think it shades into pseudoscience quite honestly some of it.

[ragman1]

That's very much the definition I use!

There were two.

[Christian Miller]

I don't do opinions.

Haha I missed this edit. Good one!

Of course you do. the difference is you hold some peoples opinions in greater value than others.

Presumably if someone is an expert at the top of their field (and crucially talking ABOUT their field) that opinion carries more weight

for instance, I would place more value in Peter Bernstein’s opinion on jazz guitar than yours, for instance. But on the subject of which fridge to buy, there might be less to choose between you.

Actually forget that point, this is the internet. Everybody got a hot take lol.

[Christian Miller]

There were two.

Edited my comment to clarify

[ragman1]

the one with explanation.

That's the one I wouldn't have chosen. Ideas aren't fact. The sun or the moon aren't ideas, they actually exist. Any opinions about them don't alter the fact.

Western music is laid out and it's what we play. The principles are clear. Theory is the exposition of those principles, not a lot of dissenting opinions.

It's generally in the application of the principles that differences occur. But one thing in jazz is that the player is free to apply them how he likes. That's purely a personal matter of taste and, again, shouldn't be a subject for dispute. If you like a particular application, fine. If you don't like it, equally fine. Too bad!

[kris]

That's the one I wouldn't have chosen. Ideas aren't fact. The sun or the moon aren't ideas, they actually exist. Any opinions about them don't alter the fact.

Western music is laid out and it's what we play. The principles are clear. Theory is the exposition of those principles, not a lot of dissenting opinions.

It's generally in the application of the principles that differences occur. But one thing in jazz is that the player is free to apply them how he likes. That's purely a personal matter of taste and, again, shouldn't be a subject for dispute. If you like it, fine. If you don't like it, equally fine.

That's not true.
Have you ever played in a band where there is a leader and he has visions of a given tune...?

[ragman1]

His vision is his personal taste. If the band wants to argue about it, fine.

[Bobby Timmons]

Christian,
When I listen to what some people play on the forum, I get the impression that there is no theory.

The backing tracks you guys all play to sure use theory. :P

[Christian Miller]

That's the one I wouldn't have chosen. Ideas aren't fact. The sun or the moon aren't ideas, they actually exist. Any opinions about them don't alter the fact.

Western music is laid out and it's what we play. The principles are clear. Theory is the exposition of those principles, not a lot of dissenting opinions.

In so much as I understand this statement, I disagree. Some musical things can be established as a fact - you can say something is a major triad for example, or contains a minor sixth and a minor third, and it is obviously a fact that E G C is a permutation of C E G and Bach just have realise that a but is it useful for learning harmony to think of those as the same chord? Bach said no, Rameau said yes. That’s where the theory comes in.

So, for instance 19th and 20th century music theory spent a lot of its time seeking to ahistorically and retrospectively understand 18th century music. This is now being challenged by some musicologists and theorists who prefer to understand the music using the theoretical ideas of the time.

Similarly, we can say that a phrase is Bb Ab G F and that’s a fact, but offering an explanation that it belongs to the G altered scale is not a fact; it is a theoretical explanation of why those notes are used.

Even in contemporary western music theory there are many schools of music theory. And we know there are different schools of jazz theory. (Not to mention different musical traditions from other cultures of course.)

Comparing music theory to physics is problematic for a number of reasons, the most obvious being that there is no mechanism by which theoretical ideas are out to the tested and rejected. I’m sure if that’s even possible for something as subjective as music.

Even a physicist I think would hesitate to call the Standard Model of Particle Physics a fact even if it has been precisely tested many times to the limit of our current ability to do so, because it remains, well, just a model and one that will be unceremoniously dumped the moment it fails to predict an experimental result, or something better comes along (everyone hates the SM btw, they’d love it if something came along that called it into question.)

It's generally in the application of the principles that differences occur. But one thing in jazz is that the player is free to apply them how he likes. That's purely a personal matter of taste and, again, shouldn't be a subject for dispute.

Most musicians go with what their teacher tells them and don’t pay it much mind. I daresay it works well enough for actually playing music. Provided you use your lugholes, which a good teacher would insist on. Otoh If you have a bad teacher, probably won’t become a musican.

[Bobby Timmons]

Anyway, apart from a rather hazy line as to where theory begins and ends, there's no question, hopefully, that theory is necessary to fully understand and play jazz.

That's not in dispute, is it?

This is true for the majority of jazz musicians.

Yeah it really depends how you define theory so I’ll be more specific. Here are some opinions:

Instrumental technique aside, what’s the most important things for an aspiring beginning jazzer to work on?

Acquiring jazz vocabulary, preferably by ear, and applying to tunes. learning repertoire, again preferably by ear as much as possible.

Do I think you need to know all the stuff in the Berklee jazz theory syllabus to play bebop?

No.

Do you need to minutely analyse the harmony of bop lines to apply them to a tune?

No.

Do you need to be able to read a lead sheet?

Yes (most likely)

Do you need to have a thorough command of your instrument?

Yes

Do you need to know the names of the notes you play on the fretboard?

No, but it’s helpful professionally to be able to read

Is Berklee style theory never useful?

No.

It may actually be essential for contemporary jazz, not sure. At the higher levels of developing your music, theory can be a useful tool for inspiration. As ravel said, you need to sit at the piano to invent harmonies you can’t already hear.

etc etc.

Mostly accurate except it leaves out harmony. Yes, it's possible to learn with the approach you explain. A minority of jazz musicians learn this way. However I doubt vast numbers of musicians learn any in depth harmony this way without studying. If your only goal is to be a gypsy and wing single note lines then ok. But I don't see why one would promote this approach when it isn't historically accurate, nor is it accurate of current pros. Even the players on the forum say they like to play by ear but then they can also go back and talk about the theory that it's based on..

[grahambop]

(Selfishly I wish Dutchbopper were here just to see the fireworks. It’s probably best for his cardiac health that he is not.)

I think he got tired of these sorts of discussions, that’s one reason he left (we messaged a bit).

[kris]

The backing tracks you guys all play to sure use theory. :P

Where is the theory in a one-chord tune?
How does theory exist in playing freejazz?
Theoretically, it can be said that the ear is the most important.

[kris]

I think he got tired of these sorts of discussions, that’s one reason he left (we messaged a bit).

Not exactly.
The level of players and comments written by these players are the main reason.
One thing comes out.
A great pity for the forum.

[ragman1]

In so much as I understand this statement, I disagree. Some musical things can be established as a fact - you can say something is a major triad for example, or contains a minor sixth and a minor third, and it is obviously a fact that E G C is a permutation of C E G and Bach just have realise that a but is it useful for learning harmony to think of those as the same chord? Bach said no, Rameau said yes. That’s where the theory comes in.

But the theory doesn't disagree. You can name EGC anyhow you like, from C/E to Em#5 to Gsus/E, but it doesn't change the notes. You apply the notes as you see fit. Same thing here:

Similarly, we can say that a phrase is Bb Ab G F and that’s a fact, but offering an explanation that it belongs to the G altered scale is not a fact; it is a theoretical explanation of why those notes are used.

Exactly, the notes are the fact regardless. Theory doesn't do your thinking for you. If you want to call that phrase an elephant it's up to you.

Even in contemporary western music theory there are many schools of music theory. And we know there are different schools of jazz theory. (Not to mention different musical traditions from other cultures of course.)

Well, good luck to them. Interpretations abound, it's the same with almost everything we touch. It's like a lot of egg-heads arguing about climate change.

Comparing music theory to physics is problematic for a number of reasons, the most obvious being that there is no mechanism by which theoretical ideas are out to the tested and rejected. I’m sure if that’s even possible for something as subjective as music.

It's not a direct comparison, obviously. As you say, a lot of it is subjective and that's the point. It's not worth arguing over the subjective.

Most musicians go with what their teacher tells them and don’t pay it much mind.

You mean they follow unthinkingly? Then perhaps the teacher should wake them up!

[grahambop]

I don't think it's because your brain is different, I think it's because you have a natural talent and the confidence of experience. Also, of course, you do a lot of listening, going to gigs and watching the pros play, and all that.

I think it’s probably just that my ears have always been quick to pick things up. When I had classical guitar lessons my sight-reading was not much good (still not great!) and it took me ages to figure out a tricky passage. But if my teacher played it just once, I immediately ‘got it’ and could play it ok. (He probably thought I was sight-reading it!).

Learning jazz, I had no books or internet, so copying stuff by ear from records just seemed natural, and faster for me than any other way.

So probably it’s meant my ears are usually ahead of theory stuff. Of course over time I would fill in the theory ‘after the fact’. I know this got a lot easier once the internet came along, I was able to find out all sorts of stuff I didn’t really know properly before. (I did of course know the basic scales and some harmony stuff from my classical guitar lessons).

[Alter]

There are countless substitutions and theory based improvisational approaches you can take on a one chord tune.

And a lot of free jazz requires huge ears that can hear all this, forms, progressions, scales, chords, etc, and react in real time..

[Christian Miller]

This is true for the majority of jazz musicians.

Mostly accurate except it leaves out harmony.

Look, I don’t mean to come off as mean or belittling I’m not terribly interested in whether you think my professional opinions are accurate or not. BUT - notice I didn’t present them as objective fact. They are also not things I came up with in the bath yesterday. I have reasons for thinking what I think. I’ve been teaching, playing and learning for a long time.

I will qualify that a little bit as you are an organist - some things work different on guitar. For instance on keys it probably seems odd to think of chords as grips and not to name or know the notes and intervals in them, but on the guitar this is kind of how it is. Some things about the guitar lead you to teach in a way that might seem backward on keys where there’s a simpler interface between the instrument and notation.

For starting jazz guitar, harmony is less important at this stage than vocab. Chords can be understood as grips - FOR NOW

not all stages of development are the same. Needs change. Usually at the start you want to get people playing fluently, and getting into the woods about the whys and wherefores is a bit of a distraction. It doesn’t help that most adult jazz students seem to be very smart and smart people are obviously very interested in things like theory and will do anything to avoid grinding and repetitive grunt work haha.

Yes, it's possible to learn with the approach you explain. A minority of jazz musicians learn this way. However I doubt vast numbers of musicians learn any in depth

aBut I don't see why one would promote this approach when it isn't historically accurate, nor is it accurate of current pros. Even the players on the forum say they like to play by ear but then they can also go back and talk about the theory that it's based on..

Because it seems to work and because actually most people learn bop vocab that way. It’s a time honoured approach. They teach it at jazz school, alongside all the chord scale stuff. Anyway don’t take my word for it (as if!), ask around. It’s not me pulling this out of my arse.

This won’t make you a great original jazz improviser but it will get you a seat at the table.

Anyway. There’s nothing wrong with theory.

[ragman1]

I think it’s probably just that my ears have always been quick to pick things up. When I had classical guitar lessons my sight-reading was not much good (still not great!) and it took me ages to figure out a tricky passage. But if my teacher played it just once, I immediately ‘got it’ and could play it ok. (He probably thought I was sight-reading it!).

Learning jazz, I had no books or internet, so copying stuff by ear from records just seemed natural, and faster for me than any other way.

So probably it’s meant my ears are usually ahead of theory stuff. Of course over time I would fill in the theory ‘after the fact’. I know this got a lot easier once the internet came along, I was able to find out all sorts of stuff I didn’t really know properly before. (I did of course know the basic scales and some harmony stuff from my classical guitar lessons).

It's very likely. Some people are 'ear players' and some are 'reading players'. Some like to listen, others prefer to see it in front of them. All of us are probably both but usually one trait predominates.

[Bobby Timmons]

Where is the theory in a one-chord tune?
How does theory exist in playing freejazz?
Theoretically, it can be said that the ear is the most important.

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

[Alter]

At least the kind I enjoy listening to, it does..

[Bobby Timmons]

At least the kind I enjoy listening to, it does..

Why is the bassist reading music? :P

[Christian Miller]

Just an additional, and kind of separate thought…

On the piano, lesson one basically gives you access to all the natural notes on the piano in all octaves.

if I’d waited until I knew every C major note on the guitar before learning jazz I’m not sure I’d have got round to it haha. Sure I know it now…. But it takes years to ingrain that knowledge.

You can probably do all eight grades of classical guitar and not really know that stuff if you are good at memorising pieces, scales and arpeggios by rote. (Hopefully teachers don’t let that happen lol.)

So yeah, if it seems daft that some guitarists don’t really know what they are playing, consider the challenges we fact in knowing wtf we are doing. No wonder the pianists laugh at us!

Anyway I don’t think this affects things that much ultimately in terms of how one learns jazz, but I do think it affects the short term in some ways. It’s why I don’t teach Barry Harris early on.

[kris]

There are countless substitutions and theory based improvisational approaches you can take on a one chord tune.

And a lot of free jazz requires huge ears that can hear all this, forms, progressions, scales, chords, etc, and react in real time..

It's not about what you can play on one chord. It's about the backing track, which is written as if under the influence of theory.
Yes, I understood it.
Freejazz was very popular in Poland in the early 70s. It really didn't require any theory to play it, they were played by complete dilettantes.