Transcribing Jazz Solos: Tips, Tricks, and Recommended Recordings

[Christian Miller]

It's not a good idea to mix Chopin with jazz...sorry
Chopin composed his music and wrote it down with his own pen.
It was GENIUS.

Yeah sorry to say that this reaction is a case in point of what I’m talking about tbh. It’s more the sort of thing I would expect from a classical musican, actually.

So, I don’t mention jazz with respect to Chopin. I mentioned improvisation. Chopin obviously didn’t play or write jazz. These are two different things.

So Chopin is undeniably one of the Greats. However he was also an improvisor, and many experts conclude that his improvisation fed directly into his compositions. This was already less common in his era than in those of Bach or Mozart, and he was noted for it.

(Obviously writing things down in notation was the only way to preserve music at that point. True improvisations of that era are lost to us in a way that Louis Armstrong’s are not.)

so - if we say that Chopin was a genius, was he less or more of a genius than Bud Powell, or Bill Evans? We don’t expect jazz musicians to merely be vessels for channeling, note perfect, the genius musicians of the past, OTOH this is a situation that has only arisen in classical music in the past century or two. It’s not the original state of affairs. In Mozarts time for example, no one played old music much, and he was expected to come up with new stuff all the time, as were his contemporaries.

Maybe this will also change for jazz. If ‘classical music’ lost its tradition of improvisation and focussed on the glories of the past, maybe jazz could too. It’s not like jazz is unique for having a tradition of improvising as much as we bang on about it.

[kris]

Yeah this reaction is a case in point. The romantics built a cult.

First of all I don’t mention jazz with respect to Chopin. I mentioned improvisation. Chopin obviously didn’t play or write jazz.

So Chopin is undeniably one of the Greats. However he was also an improvisor, and many experts conclude that his improvisation fed directly into his compositions. This was already less common in his era than in those of Bach or Mozart, and he was noted for it.

(Obviously writing things down in notation was the only way to preserve music at that point.)

so - if we say that Chopin was a genius, was he less or more of a genius than Bud Powell, or Bill Evans? We don’t expect jazz musicians to merely be vessels for channeling, note perfect, the genius improvisers of the past, OTOH this is a situation that has only arisen in classical music in the past century or two. It’s not the original state of affairs.

Maybe this will also change for jazz. If ‘classical music’ lost its tradition of improvisation and focussed on the glories of the past, maybe jazz could too. It’s not like jazz is unique for having a tradition of improvising as much as we bang on about it.

You must be kidding.
F.Chopin and jazz pianists who may have played Chopin's works in music schools.
You should listen to the experts' comments during the Chopin Competition in Warsaw...:-)
"Every note worth its weight in gold is not an improvisation...."

[Christian Miller]

You must be kidding.
F.Chopin and jazz pianists who may have played Chopin's works in music schools.
You should listen to the experts' comments during the Chopin Competition in Warsaw...:-)
"Every note worth its weight in gold is not an improvisation...."

That's kind of irrelevant. I don't want to come across to be disrespectful of to concert artists or anything, I can't begin to interpret music to that level. It's a high level art form (obviously). There is a tradition that has grown up around the performance of these pieces over the best part of two hundred years. What we receive is culturally a lot richer than when Chopin first wrote down the dots. Having been coached in Lieder and so on as a classical singer, I have a little experience of that world and how exacting it is. This is certainly not a 'bad thing' in any sense.

But a young singer will spend a great deal more time shaping a performance of a Schubert lied than he will have spent writing it, for instance. He knocked those things out!

The point is simply that the way we view classical music has changed quite a bit from when these works were created. The establishment of a canon of Great Works that everyone should master to be a concert artist (Chopin being an obvious example) and the perhaps connected near disappearance of the classical improviser (like Chopin) and for that matter to a large extent the composer/performer (like Chopin) are cases in point and trends of the later 19th century and 20th centuries and quite alien to the world inhabited by those venerated masters.

Chopin was a great improvisor, this is a well established historical fact.

Here's a link to an abstract of an academic paper on the subject (sadly the article is paywalled)
Chopin and Improvisation | Chopin and His World | Princeton Scholarship Online | Oxford Academic

Here's an account from a blog, so less academic obviously
Chopin, They Are Profaning You! Fryderyk’s Adventures with Jazz | Article | Culture.pl

BTW they are not conflating jazz with improv here despite the title.

[kris]

That's how everyone hooks up to Chopin's genius. It's a fact.
I also developed an e-minor prelude for guitar.
I made a jazz song out of it, which the audience really likes.
But this is only a fraction of Chopin in my playing.
Let's be serious.
Chopin is not just written notes.
It is something that cannot be described in words.
This is not obvious to all people.

[JimmyDunlop]

That's how everyone hooks up to Chopin's genius. It's a fact.
I also developed an e-minor prelude for guitar.
I made a jazz song out of it, which the audience really likes.
But this is only a fraction of Chopin in my playing.
Let's be serious.
Chopin is not just written notes.
It is something that cannot be described in words.
This is not obvious to all people.

I can agree, "It is something that cannot be described in words." , trying to compare him with Bill Evans or Bud Powell as christian did, its a bad joke...

[Christian Miller]

By the way the second article does bring up something which is a side issue relevant to jazz too... which is the idea that improvisation is spontaneous composition carte blanche. This is a bit of chimera IMO... as Steve Swallow puts it, improvisers do not fashion music from whole cloth each time.

[Christian Miller]

That's how everyone hooks up to Chopin's genius. It's a fact.
I also developed an e-minor prelude for guitar.
I made a jazz song out of it, which the audience really likes.
But this is only a fraction of Chopin in my playing.
Let's be serious.
Chopin is not just written notes.
It is something that cannot be described in words.
This is not obvious to all people.

I don't understand why Chopin can't be both a genius and also an improviser whose improvisations influenced his compositions?

Perhaps you can break it down for me so I can understand.

[Christian Miller]

I can agree, "It is something that cannot be described in words." , trying to compare him with Bill Evans or Bud Powell as christian did, its a bad joke...

Can you explain why the comparison is absurd to you?

[JimmyDunlop]

He was WAY above these guys, obviously

[Christian Miller]

He was WAY above these guys, obviously

It’s not obvious to me. Perhaps you can explain to me.

it’s ok if prefer Chopin to those guys obviously. But that’s not the claim you are making.

[Christian Miller]

He was WAY above these guys, obviously

also if you aren’t really interested in jazz, or the aesthetic of the music doesn’t appeal, maybe you should check out other ways to improvise.

in order to learn to improvise in any music you must internalise the repertory and music itself. why spend time immersing oneself in what you feel is substandard music? Go straight to the stuff that speaks to you.

Check out some En Blanc Et Noir videos for example, where improvisation in a Romantic piano style, including that of Chopin, is often discussed. Understand also that he knows the repertoire backwards.

[kris]

I don't understand why Chopin can't be both a genius and also an improviser whose improvisations influenced his compositions?

Perhaps you can break it down for me so I can understand.

It's too enigmatic for me.
It doesn't matter to me if he was or wasn't.
How good it was and how it wasn't good.
I can't hear him play and improvise.

[kris]

also if you aren’t really interested in jazz, or the aesthetic of the music doesn’t appeal, maybe you should check out other ways to improvise.

in order to learn to improvise in any music you must internalise the repertory and music itself. I can’t imagine anything worse than immersing yourself in what you feel to be less than amazing music.

Check out some En Blanc Et Noir videos for example, where improvisation in a Romantic piano style, including that of Chopin, is often discussed. Understand also that he knows the repertoire backwards.

Don't overdo it.
does every music composer have to be a good improviser?

[Christian Miller]

Don't overdo it.
does every music composer have to be a good improviser?

the ones circa 1700s were, it was part of the gig. Chopin was a later flowering of that tradition. But by then it wasn’t universal.

remember, we’d be hard pressed to copy out parts as fast as those guys wrote music.

There’s a complex interplay between improv and musical style which is way too in depth to go into here. Simply put; improv tends to rely on ornamentation of set materials - it’s a decorative art. The music of the 1700s is quite formulaic in some respects.

Later composition (post Beethoven) becomes arguably more about redefining musical materials including into more ambitious musical structures. But that’s a bit of a simplification.

You may find a similar dichotomy in your own work, I know i do.

[kris]

It’s not obvious to me. Perhaps you can explain to me.

it’s ok if prefer Chopin to those guys obviously. But that’s not the claim you are making.

Do you know how many pieces Chopin wrote-composed?
Did you know that the whole world plays Chopin's works - I mean pianists?
As you know, you already have the answer.

[JimmyDunlop]

It’s not obvious to me. Perhaps you can explain to me.

it’s ok if prefer Chopin to those guys obviously. But that’s not the claim you are making.

just check the quality of its musical ideas... seriously... ask people with real education and a lot of taste, Rubisntein, like Glenn Gould, Carlos Kleiber, etc, who do they prefer... if you think its not obvious that Chopin geniuses its way above these guys...cmon... you can like them more to Chopin, but in general I cant place them not even close . It is very clear to me.

[Christian Miller]

Do you know how many pieces Chopin wrote-composed?
Did you know that the whole world plays Chopin's works - I mean pianists?
As you know, you already have the answer.

I don’t understand how that means Chopin’s work wouldn’t be informed by his skills as an improviser.

I mean loads of people play bebop heads too!

[kris]

the ones circa 1700s were, it was part of the gig. Chopin was a later flowering of that tradition. But by then it wasn’t universal.

remember, we’d be hard pressed to copy out parts as fast as those guys wrote music.

There’s a complex interplay between improv and musical style which is way too in depth to go into here. Simply put; improv tends to rely on ornamentation of set materials - it’s a decorative art. The music of the 1700s is quite formulaic in some respects.

Later composition (post Beethoven) becomes arguably more about redefining musical materials including into more ambitious musical structures. But that’s a bit of a simplification.

You may find a similar dichotomy in your own work, I know i do.

Let's talk about our times.
Penderecki,Lutoslawski......Gorecki,Killar....:-)
Maybe I'll learn something bout improvisation skills.

[kris]

I don’t understand how that means Chopin’s work wouldn’t be informed by his skills as an improviser.

I mean loads of people play bebop heads too!

I'm ending this because it reminds me of arguing with Ragman.
I have my thoughts and you have yours.

[kris]

One more time!
It's too enigmatic for me.
It doesn't matter to me if he was or wasn't.
How good it was and how it wasn't good.
I can't hear him play and improvise.

[Christian Miller]

just check the quality of its musical ideas... seriously... ask people with real education and a lot of taste, Rubisntein, like Glenn Gould, Carlos Kleiber, etc, who do they prefer... if you think its not obvious that Chopin geniuses its way above these guys...cmon... you can like them more to Chopin, but in general I cant place them not even close . It is very clear to me.

Why slum it with us schmos then? Go and be a proper musician. Or don't. You're wasting your time here if that's your view.

For me, it is not important to me what Glenn Gould thought for forming my own views, although it's often entertaining. He was an iconoclast, and I can relate. His famous Mozart takedown is amusing, but the main thing it indicates to me he either didn't have a clue how to play Mozart or was faking missing the point brilliantly. His Bach performances are highly idiosyncratic and you either buy into that or go to someone more respectful. A common comment is 'I hear Gould, but not Bach.' IIRC he regarded himself as an improviser on Bach's works. I like that he did his own thing. That's pretty unusual, it remains quite a radical stance.

As for the other guys - they spent a lifetime playing the piano repetoire to the highest possible level. I no more expect them to have an opinion on Bill Evans than Richard Dawkins to have an opinion on Quantum Mechanics. Obviously it's related to what they do, but it's not their specialism. I happen to know (famous Mozart interpreter and - yes - improviser) Robert Levin likes Brad Mehldau. But so what..

[kris]

Why slum it with us schmos then? Go and be a proper musician. Or don't. You're wasting your time here if that's your view.

For me, it is not important to me what Glenn Gould thought for forming my own views, although it's often entertaining. His famous Mozart takedown is amusing, but the main thing it indicates to me he didn't have a clue how to play Mozart (or was faking missing the point brilliantly). His Bach performances are highly idiosyncratic and you either buy into that or go to someone more respectful. IIRC he regarded himself as an improviser on Bach's works. I like that he did his own thing. That's pretty unusual.

As for the other guys - they spent a lifetime playing the piano repetoire to the highest possible level. I no more expect them to have an opinion on Bill Evans than Richard Dawkins to have an opinion on Quantum Mechanics. Obviously it's related to what they do, but it's not their specialism. I happen to know (famous Mozart interpreter and - yes - improviser) Robert Levin likes Brad Mehldau. But so what..

You jump out of Chopin and then you write endlessly...
You have knowledge and I appreciate it very much. But flying through all eras to play 'blues' is probably .... exaggeration.

[JimmyDunlop]

Why slum it with us schmos then? Go and be a proper musician. Or don't. You're wasting your time here if that's your view.

For me, it is not important to me what Glenn Gould thought for forming my own views, although it's often entertaining. He was an iconoclast, and I can relate. His famous Mozart takedown is amusing, but the main thing it indicates to me he either didn't have a clue how to play Mozart or was faking missing the point brilliantly. His Bach performances are highly idiosyncratic and you either buy into that or go to someone more respectful. A common comment is 'I hear Gould, but not Bach.' IIRC he regarded himself as an improviser on Bach's works. I like that he did his own thing. That's pretty unusual, it remains quite a radical stance.

As for the other guys - they spent a lifetime playing the piano repetoire to the highest possible level. I no more expect them to have an opinion on Bill Evans than Richard Dawkins to have an opinion on Quantum Mechanics. Obviously it's related to what they do, but it's not their specialism. I happen to know (famous Mozart interpreter and - yes - improviser) Robert Levin likes Brad Mehldau. But so what..

Gould was a genius, he adapted Bach just as a film director adapts a novel...whats wrong with that? to listening orthodoxians performance you have those who has not creativity.
Kleiber wasnt a pianist... lol
xD

[Christian Miller]

I'm ending this because it reminds me of arguing with Ragman.
I have my thoughts and you have yours.

Are we arguing? I mean we seem to be talking about two different things.

I thought I was just pointing out that Chopin was an improviser and this affected the way he composed music according to many experts, and that the nature of classical music has changed over time, and this could also happen to jazz. If I have an argument it's more that we put classical composers on a pedestal and that improvisation, once common has faded out in Western Art Music, both of which points are hard to dispute as far as I can see, and maybe we'll do the same in jazz as those musicians pass out of living memory.

If you want to say Chopin is better than Bud Powell, or something, that's a subjective opinion that I feel is neither easily proven or disproven. Jimmy Dunlop went to 'appeal to authority' immediately, which is what I would expect. Because that's were it comes from. It's not like everyone who has this opinion is a musicological expert on Chopin AND Bud Powell and can substantiate their opinion on that basis (and IMO it would fail if they tried, waste of time. Bud doesn't do extended forms. Chopin doesn't swing. These apples make crap oranges! Boom)

It is not a subjective opinion that Chopin was an improviser, and it is not a subjective opinion that many musicologists have argued that improvisation was important to his compositional process.

So I'll leave that there and give links if you like.

I don't really see an argument there. I would argue perhaps that we put classical composers on pedestals because we are taught to do that, and I could see the same thing happen in jazz.

[JimmyDunlop]

Are we arguing? I mean we seem to be talking about two different things.

I thought I was just pointing out that Chopin was an improviser and this affected the way he composed music according to many experts, and that the nature of classical music has changed over time, and this could also happen to jazz. If I have an argument it's more that we put classical composers on a pedestal, which is hard to dispute as far as I can see, and maybe we'll do the same in jazz as those musicians pass out of living memory.

If you want to say Chopin is better than Bud Powell, or something, that's a subjective opinion that I feel is neither easily proven or disproven. Jimmy Dunlop went to 'appeal to authority' immediately, which is what I would expect. Because that's were it comes from. It's not like everyone who has this opinion is a musicological expert on Chopin AND Bud Powell and can substantiate their opinion on that basis (and IMO it would fail if they tried, waste of time. Bud doesn't do extended forms. Chopin doesn't swing. These apples make crap oranges! Boom)

It is not a subjective opinion that Chopin was an improviser, and it is not a subjective opinion that many musicologists have argued that improvisation was important to his compositional process.

So I'll leave that there and give links if you like.

I don't really see an argument there. I would argue perhaps that we put classical composers on pedestals because we are taught to do that, and I could see the same thing happen in jazz.

It is about taste, my taste tell me that he is WAY above, but if you dont want to believe me then believe the authority....Its not cause of them that I like it, because when I hear it I listen something that its way mroe enjoyable, with greater phrases, musical development, etc, it looks like a joke to debate about it. Comapre them to oscar peterson and art tatum. And compare chopin to Liszt or Rachmaninoff or Beethoven. That makes sense