I think improvisation is overrated

[PatrickJazzGuitar]

I know I risk becoming a pariah by saying 'improvisation is overrated'. But, hear me out.

But, that's probably because I'm not very good at it . I admit defeat.

I started on woodwinds back in the 60s, started on clarinet in '59, switched to sax for a few years, then played flute in the high school band in the 60s.

so, I was 15 when I got a guitar. I heard Charlie Byrd on the radio, and it was at that moment I knew I had to
study guitar. You can play chords! It's portable! And guitar is very popular. I also was into a guy named Gabor Szabo (RIP).

Anyway, I got my first guitar, it was a nylon string, because, I knew going the Charlie Bird style was the path I wanted to do.

Then started listening to Bola Sete, Lenny Breau, and so many others, even got into Chet Atkins. But, finger picking and nylon string has been my love. Tried electric, didn't like it. I don't prefer amplified guitars. I have no wrist and I don't like holding a pick. I love the freedom of finger picking. Studied classical, as well. It goes with the guitar.

But, the purpose of this post is to rant a bit on 'improvisation'. Thing is, I switched from woodwinds to guitar, because, well, playing woodwinds is all about improvisation, and if you are not a good improviser on woodwinds, what good are you?

It's because I have a handicap, I find it impossible for me to hold the 'form' (the chord structure) in my head. If I look away from the lead sheet, the chords just vanish in my head and I get lost in the form and I'm no Chet Baker or Stan Getz with killer ears. I found out that I was good a composing, so I concentrated my music studies on writing jazzy songs. And that I can do. I can also comp and accompany, as long as there is music in front of me. I've had my music performed in major jazz venues here in SoCal, and some of my songs have gotten over 160k spins on spotify (which earned me enough buy dinner, that's about it).

So, about 13 years ago, for a couple of years, I did my first foray into gigging (beyond playing solo) at the tender age of 59. i had a duo, myself and a female vocalist, and we did mostly bossa nova, latin, and standards with a latin rhythm. I also did casuals with quartet and some nice hotels. Now, here's the thing, I appreciate those who can improvise well. I envy them, in fact, but, since I'm not good at it, I accept it, but I do appreciate those who are good at it. thing is, most musicians I've met really aren't that good at it. Now, many of you might think they are good, but to my ears, they aren't. The ones that are are great to listen to, and all of them are famous. You know, Bill Evans, Miles, Joe Pass, Lenny Breau, Chet Baker, Gerry Mulligan, Paul Desmond, Stan Getz and on and on and on.

But, for the average jazz musician in your average local club, I really don't enjoy it that much and would rather listen to someone who is good at chord melody or a good vocalist. Same goes for piano (I took up piano in the 90s, the wisest thing I've done in my life). What I really don't care for is 5 guys each playing three choruses each and grinding on a song for 20 minutes. I think that is what loses the non jazz audience, that they can appreciate jazz if it's singer-centric and improvisation is for 16-32 bars as melodic relief. That's actually what I prefer. I'm really in to Brazilian jazz, and one of my favorite vocalists is Gal Costa (RIP). There you have it, my little rant. I hope I can find at least one jazz guy out there who can understand where I'm coming from.

I just want to put in the word for any of you guys who think improvisation is everything and you, like me, aren't good at it. You don't have to be, because what I really discovered, playing solo guitar in cafes in the 90s, that people really love the chord-melody style guitar, they don't even know it's 'jazz'. I can't think of how many times someone asked me 'what style is that'? Oh yeah, I just remembered I gigged solo for spell in the 90s. Just me, a condenser mic and a PA. So, if you aren't good at it, get good at chord melody, and you'll be loved by the general public. There's hope for you, after all.

[AllanAllen]

There’s nothing wrong with improvising off a lead sheet. Things get better once you break away.

You say you had a Bossa Nova duo with a female vocalist. I assume Girl From Ipanema was a regular tune, Did you need a sheet for that? Something you played at every gig?

Can you get through a blues without a sheet? I’m really interested in this. If you can’t internalize a song it makes sense you can’t improvise.

I have found, when you get to gigging, single note lines are less important than comping. You comp a lot and you need to be on time and confident. So in a way, I agree with you.

[joelf]

It's not that it's overrated, it's that it's rarely practiced in its truest form.

Lee Konitz, who did build solos from the ground up, had a strong suspicion of and distaste for 'prepared playing'. Most improvisers do have at least a sketch in mind, if not some things worked out on certain chord patterns.

But is this improvising? If you're going to play what you shedded that day regardless of what others on the stand are doing you're not listening and responding. It may be good playing, but there's no conversation.

In a spoken conversation there's an exchange: a thing is said, then responded to. If the responder rejoins with a pre-planned take then he's not really responding or listening, but merely reciting. No give and take here.

But if he really listens he just may think, then go a whole different route than the pre-planned one. His view may even be altered---re-examined and reshaped by new info he hadn't heretofore considered. The exchange took him there.

Music is a language. Jazz is music of a dialect. Improvising is supposed to be our cornerstone. The reason it rarely happens is a doctrinaire putting on of blinders---ear blinders, to painfully mix a metaphor.

Are there genuine improvisers who don't listen and play off of, say, the last phrase of the previous solo? Sure, but they have to also be in the moment with their own noggins---clear out thoughts and habit and just trust and let fly. Sonny Rollins has talked about this numerous times: if he slots in a quote or pattern, worked out in pre-performance, at the concert he avers that it always crashes, bringing what could have been a fresh and organic solo down.

I'm an advocate of conversational playing. I want to be taken somewhere new and away from the comfort zone that is after all a cocoon. I don't like soloing first, even when I'm the leader. I know too well what I sound like and to avoid ruts I listen and listen loudly to the current sonic environment: soloists, rhythm section, audience.

Anything played or even said can spawn fresh ideas and paths previously unwalked when one is alert and open. This to me is the essence of true improvisation...

[rpjazzguitar]

There's a big difference between the journeymen and the experts.

It's also relevant, I think, that the whole band needs to be at a high level. You can't make great jazz with a backing track or a poor rhythm section -- at least not what I think of as great jazz

The best jazz bands are exciting. You feel something. You want to move with the music. You can't predict what's next, because the musicians haven't created it yet. Even they don't know what's going to happen.

That's hard to do. A lot of planets have to line up to make it work.

Not unique to jazz either. Compare the local garage band to the Eagles or the Beatles.

[joelf]

And please don't forget that one can also devise instrumental combinations on the fly as ideas come up. A group I heard earlier sounded good, but it was business as usual. How much more interesting they could have sounded had the leader shaped a rendition by, say, having the section stroll on a solo, then, as tension and excitement grew and the player got hot, then hotter bring them back in. Or started with just bass and melody player. Or started out with solos, especially conversational ones (read: listen then react, or even blow together, really listening and playing off one another) and ending with the melody.

These little moves involve listeners with the creative process and poor new water on old flowers...

[Cunamara]

Well, I have to agree there are a lot of folks out there who don’t improvise well but are doing it on the bandstand (I am one, except sometimes). I blame modern jazz pedagogy which has obfuscated the core of jazz and tried to replace it with “over chord X play scale A, B or C” mechanisms.

[mr. beaumont]

To each their own. It's my favorite thing about music.

[Jimmy Smith]

I disagree that only a select few can improvise well. I hear not well known musicians killing it on the smalls and mez cam very frequently. I also doubt you can't do it. It just takes a lot of work. Although, I do like composition and composition in the context of jazz.

[Jimmy blue note]

In the particular genre of music I play, some call it jazz but what is jazz?, improvisation is the entire raison d'etre, the reason why you do it. There are performing bands that play great arranged shows night after night, and do it well, and it swings, but if it doesn't involve the participation of the soloist as the centre of a spontaneous and original musical "composition", then it's not in the jazz tradition.

I'm not really sure about what your delineations are or what your anxiety about improvisation is, but in the tradition in which I was brought up in, if you don't improvise...if you don't make something original that has not been intentionally played before, that's not jazz. It may be as subtle as a treatment of a ballad, wherein the improvisation is a rhythmic redefinition of a piece you know really well, but it's got to have something of yourself and your creative abilities on the line. That's what makes it jazz.

Sure you can be an accompaniast and it's beautiful, satisfying and enjoyable for all, but it's not jazz, a genre wherein the improvisational element is not only essential, it's everything.
Yeah, it takes a long time, and a practiced insight to be able to play/create something personal, and spontaneous, that's not a lot of rambling and scrambling, but that's the challenge.

A jazz player accepts the song as a framework with which the soloist creates his/her contribution to the piece, using the same elements as the written composer: pitch, harmonic context, dynamics, phrasing, a sense of purpose and a practiced vocabulary of musicality. To the jazz player, the improvisor, Cole Porter or Jobim or Wayne Shorter is the partner for the duration of the piece and you must be adept so you can do your part to understand and create your space. A solo is not an excuse to fill the space in the spotlight with any random desperate noodlings and doodlings and take a bow afterwords: it's your time to compose in real time.
Of course along that journey are many years of learning and evolution. Don't judge all performances by a metric born of your own shortcomings. If you can't solo on a form, it's because your own understanding of form is not solid enough to play with. If you don't get what a band is doing in their solos, it's because they're not clear in the delivery or you're not astute in the hearing. It happens.

Improvisation is what defines jazz (improvisational) music as a genre.
Whether you play jazz or not, it helps to be clear about your objectives and what is needed to meet them. What ever you play, know what you want to do and make it a source of joy. Isn't that what it's about?

[joelf]

...the whole band needs to be at a high level.

Yes, but also at a high level of listening.

Otherwise you got 3 or more Florida-sized egos talking over each other to show how badass they are (or think they are).

Remember Cream?

[joelf]

Although, I do like composition and composition in the context of jazz.

To me, and my many betters, jazz is spontaneous composition.

My favorite jazzers tend to be player-composers. But even the ones who aren't compose on the stand or in-studio. Their improvising has order, immediacy and purpose. Every note is in place and has a reason for being there. And every note 'tells' on what preceded and what will follow. Suddenly playing an unrelated flurry may thrill and even sound great, but to me it properly belongs in a different category. (But I'm a composer, therefore prejudiced)...

[joelf]

To the jazz player, the improvisor, Cole Porter or Jobim or Wayne Shorter is the partner for the duration of the piece and you must be adept so you can do your part to understand and create your space. A solo is not an excuse to fill the space in the spotlight with any random desperate noodlings and doodlings and take a bow afterwords: it's your time to compose in real time.
Of course along that journey are many years of learning and evolution...

Very well put, all of it.

The reason I highlighted the above section is personal: 30 years or so ago I was more 'original' than ever since, especially composing. I had gone out, then came back in. It affected playing too, in a different way, just not quite as much. At the time I even considered myself a 'presenter' of song, not an artist. This culminated with a solo CD, wherein there was improvising, to be sure, but the main event was the songs themselves. And composing I wanted to go further than notes, so I first looked for lyricists. Failing to find any I started writing my own. Then I started studying the craft. When I came upon Stephen Sondheim's writing about it (Finishing the Hat) I started taking his words a mite too seriously, and began second-guessing myself as to whether I'd properly followed the 'rules'. The muse was tamped down, even bound and gagged. My songs in this period were more accessible, probably because they were more derivative, and more overly 'respectful' of my betters. (I never had this problem playing. I always put the natural and the learned in the same funnel and it always seemed to come out me.)

What happens when one does this is that one makes a deeper bow to tradition and 'received wisdom' than is required by genuine artistry, though learning craft from the masters is vital and knowledge supports, not hinders, the natural gifts. There's a certain arrogance, or at least tremendous confidence in one's content and message necessary in being as creative as possible, even as the work of our predecessors is evident in our own.

I came to realize some years after this bend in the river that I, too, have a voice. For better or worse no one sounds like I do playing or writes like me. This epiphany was recent, and I'm only now beginning to have faith. I'm not sorry, though, for the time spent going more 'in' and becoming more derivative. After all, to break rules one ought to first at least know them. I alway cite pianist Chris Anderson as a prime exponent of this: he went on some wild excursions on tunes, especially playing solo with no one to adjust to. But he knew every nuance and every lyric of the original song, and to me this is what gave him a 'visa' to travel as far away as he did. He checked in with the original, then checked that at the door and took off.

He's still my hero, but I'm ready now to do it too, and my way...

[Christian Miller]

One interesting thing about learning to improvise in a different idiom is that it has taught me a lot about what it is to be an early stage jazz learner again. So much of it is idiom and vocab at the early stages. You want to sound generic and obvious before you can then reject that stuff. ‘Find your own style? You can’t play yet’

So I think people get bent out of shape. Improvisation is so natural it takes years of training to stop people from doing it. Of course in terms of actually being able to improvise in a tradition or improv - that’s a much longer process that involves contact with the music, and actually learning music, which all serious jazz players are of course very serious about.

We are in danger of looking at music through the filters and hang ups of classical musicians. This was somewhat inevitable in the 1950s but not really today.

every tradition apart from modern classical has this sort of informal ‘improvised’ penumbra of practices that don’t involve scores and invites participation of performers in the construction of the music. Some are more identified with improv than others - for instance Hindustani music is more improvised than Karnatic- but all involve points in this continuum. (Modern Classical performance practice being its own weird little special case that we treat with a lot of attention because of its cultural hegemony.)

I think it’s healthy to see not a binary between composition and spontaneous improv but a continuum. I think a type of ‘casual composition’ for want or a better word is where a lot of the practice actually lies. This can absolutely be true of non idiomatic or ‘free’ groups btw. And some times the strangest or most original sounding music (such as Monk) is actually highly composed.

If I’ve learned one thing by working on Konnakol, free improv (which often involves a rejection of jazz, something I found a struggle at first), classical historical improv, non idiomatic improv with composers and so on, is that jazz is not synonymous with improvisation and it’s kind of rude to make out that it is haha.

As my Konnakol teacher (himself a performer of both Karnatic music and jazz) jazz musicians are not the experts on improvisation - although they think they are. Jazz musicians are experts on jazz.

OTOH he pointed the actual amount of improvised notes in a working jazz band might be less than you think. But in his (high level professional) opinion improvisation itself is less about the notes and more about the spirit.

In fact in my experience in working jazz groups, unexpected elements are often very unwelcome as I’ve found over the years (ask people and I suspect they might tell you I’m a bit of an improvisational loose cannon and a pain in the behind. I get bored easy.)

‘the secret of improvisation is that it is not improvised.’

In the end I’m partial to Pete Bernstein’s ‘jazz is a decorative art.’ I think that takes care of the lot of the problems identified above. Pete of course centres the song. A lot of improv worldwide is decorative. Ornamentation is underrated.

[Bop Head]

Regarding keeping the form of a tune:

Still being a learner regarding jazz I found it to be very helpful to learn the melody first together with the lyrics (if available*)) by listening to as many different versions as possible. This helps me also to collect the quintessence of the changes because there are always variations and reharmonisations.
Then I try to figure out the harmonies by ear. Then I look at as many different versions of sheet music as possible from the original vocal-piano-(ukelele/guitar) score to the different fake books I have collected over the years. I try out the different variations there and try to understand the variations/reharmonizations.
The melody is according to Bruce Forman**) like a clothesline that you hang the chords on like clothes hangers.
The next thing i do is practicing those changes and their variations with drop 2 voicings in a small range of the fretboard going through all keys which forces me to apply inversions which in turn makes me aware of chord tones and voice leading. While doing this I try to apply my collected knowledge of substitutions and passing chords. I do the same thing with shell chords. (I have spent the recent months on developing my personal method of creating movement by connecting the basic shell chords with subs and passing chords.
Also very helpful after I have learned the tune as described above is practicing scale outlines à la Barry Harris. The 1- and 2-measure phrases structure the form as well and at the same time help you to internalize sounds that fit over the changes which is of course important for improvisation.

*) There are lyrics even for bebop or hardbop compositions written by folks like Oscar Brown jr. or Jon Hendricks.

**) I think the image comes from the Tristano school originally; I read the same thing recently mentioned in the context of Warne Marsh's teaching.

[joelf]

In the end I’m partial to Pete Bernstein’s ‘jazz is a decorative art.’....

I'm not so sure. Pete happens to be humble, I know for a fact having known him most of his life. It's it's that 'decorative' an art why is it I know it's him (or others like him) around 5 seconds into a solo? It's his voice I'm hearing, not mere decoration.

Maybe the best answer is that we start out fresh and new though raw, go outside ourselves to learn, marinate, shake, blend and it all comes out a unique gumbo...

[Bop Head]

Practicing shell voicings of which basically two versions exist, one with the third and one with the seventh (resp. sixth) on top helps also to hear the guide tone lines which are the most important part of voice leading. If you know them by heart it is much easier to "play the changes".

Practice the chord tones and know them (which means you hear them). Your ears should be trained anyway after all those years of playing and composing.

One thing I got from a Peter Bernstein interview or workshop on YouTube is playing the melody over and over again and again until out of boredom you start to hear embellishments and variations (which are the real origin of jazz improvisation).

[Christian Miller]

I'm not so sure. Pete happens to be humble, I know for a fact having known him most of his life. It's it's that 'decorative' an art why is it I know it's him (or others like him) around 5 seconds into a solo? It's his voice I'm hearing, not mere decoration.

Ah you see, this kind of statement is exactly why I say ornamentation is underrated. I don’t see why a technique of ornamentation/decoration is incompatible with the idea of creativity or originality of voice. Quite the opposite.

(Maybe we think music is architecture and we don’t want to be thought of as interior decorators or something, who knows?)

People see ornamentation as a poor relation whereas actually I think it’s much more important to both composition and improvisation than is often said. Possibly central.

For myself I can say I play more creatively when I start with the song. There’s much less a tendency to throw in all my ii V licks that I’m bored rigid of. My playing surprises me more. And I got that directly from Pete. Afaik Konitz’s approach was also based on this.

The thing is it’s actually much closer to the process of many ‘proper’ composers - here are the basic materials, let’s make something out of these.

Not ‘here’s my shit’ (which is imo an expression of ego.) You can’t force having one’s own voice… come to think of it Bobby Hutcherson said Eric Dolphy taught him ‘music is like the wind… you don’t own anything.’ You ain’t got no shit lol, it all comes from Somewhere Else.

There’s other ways of course.

Maybe the best answer is that we start out fresh and new though raw, go outside ourselves to learn, marinate, shake, blend and it all comes out a unique gumbo...

well if I had anything much to say in the wall of text above, it’s that it’s perhaps best not to overthink it and to focus on music. But I do find the process of ornamentation extremely fruitful for playing more creatively.

[James W]

(Modern Classical performance practice being its own weird little special case that we treat with a lot of attention because of its cultural hegemony.)

Where did you get this idea from? How is it culturally hegemonic? Who is this 'we'?

[joelf]

I met this guitarist on FB, and recently we finally spoke on the phone. I like him. He's a seasoned and accomplished player. He had sent me his CD of tributes to a guitar giant (I'm being purposely vague, not wanting to 'out' or embarrass anyone when being critical). It was cool.

But during that conversation he grew almost anxious regarding wanting me to hear his latest CD, of originals. The disc arrived and I put it in my player. Sorry to say I got through only 3 or so tracks. The writing had craft but little else. Dullsville. Same for the playing, accomplished, relaxed and wise though it is. I'd have liked it better had he taken more chances with both, and had the faith and courage to 'err on the side of art'.

And I don't mean to demean the importance of being good here. It's damn hard to be good, takes many years---and to me some folks aren't really all that good, being 'gooder' at self-promotion.

But the fact remains: I turned it off b/c it bored me. If he asks what do I think, and he doubtless will since he seemed so anxious for approbation, (and probably needed it from everyone else he sent it to) I'll go into white lie mode. Nothing is gained by honesty that may well be self-serving and can be perceived as hurtful.

And I'll leave his CD on the shelf along with other recordings by friends, some of which I like better. (It's a special, separate shelf I made just for those I know personally). And hope to return to it another day, maybe in another mood---and discover what I may have missed the 1st time around...

[Christian Miller]

Where did you get this idea from? How is it culturally hegemonic? Who is this 'we'?

the we in this case is mainstream Western musical education and to some extent, the wider culture. work a few years in mainstream music education, and you’ll get it.

I could talk for hours about this… but probably the simplest way I could put it is that the majority of music educators were classically trained as performers.

I don’t mean this as a criticism or to demean their expertise. I actually really respect this tradition as you know. But, it does tend to shape things. Hegemonic forces are often more systemic and emergent than consciously directed.

there’s also an extensive academic literature on this very issue I could point you towards if you are glutton for punishment. (Tbh it’s mostly classical performers talking to themselves. They like to do that. Some is worth reading. Google the Mayday group for example, David Elliott, Lucy Greene etc.)

[joelf]

Ah you see, this kind of statement is exactly why I say ornamentation is underrated. I don’t see why a technique of ornamentation/decoration is incompatible with the idea of creativity or originality of voice. Quite the opposite.

(Maybe we think music is architecture and we don’t want to be thought of as interior decorators or something, who knows?)

People see ornamentation as a poor relation whereas actually I think it’s much more important to both composition and improvisation than is often said. Possibly central.

For myself I can say I play more creatively when I start with the song. There’s much less a tendency to throw in all my ii V licks that I’m bored rigid of. My playing surprises me more. And I got that directly from Pete. Afaik Konitz’s approach was also based on this.

The thing is it’s actually much closer to the process of many ‘proper’ composers - here are the basic materials, let’s make something out of these.

Not ‘here’s my shit’ (which is imo an expression of ego.) You can’t force having one’s own voice… come to think of it Bobby Hutcherson said Eric Dolphy taught him ‘music is like the wind… you don’t own anything.’ You ain’t got no shit lol, it all comes from Somewhere Else.

There’s other ways of course.



well if I had anything much to say in the wall of text above, it’s that it’s perhaps best not to overthink it and to focus on music. But I do find the process of ornamentation extremely fruitful for playing more creatively.

Then keep ornamenting. Why not? If I had the chops to I would myself---as long as it wouldn't supersede the melodies I make playing. And it doesn't have to.

They say arranging is like being a tailor, and adding ornaments to the composition. It's actually more original and intuitive than that, and requires great perception and ability to problem solve. When I studied with Bill Finegan I up and told him 'Bill, I'll never be an arranger on your level, and I don't think I even want to. I have the soul of a songwriter'.

'Then write songs'.

And you keep ornamenting. It's you!...

[Christian Miller]

Then keep ornamenting. Why not? If I had the chops to I would myself---as long as it wouldn't supersede the melodies I make playing. And it doesn't have to.

They say arranging is like being a tailor, and adding ornaments to the composition. It's actually more original and intuitive than that, and requires great perception and ability to problem solve. When I studied with Bill Finegan I up and told him 'Bill, I'll never be an arranger on your level, and I don't think I even want to. I have the soul of a songwriter'.

'Then write songs'.

And you keep ornamenting. It's you!...

Arranging and composition, another continuum

a binary forced by copyright law?

(see also jazz and poverty. Conrad Cork wrote a fantastic article about this once. Many things shape the material conditions and the art.)

the point about real music making is it’s not me. I spend enough time with me as it is.

other people can think it’s me maybe? Or not.

That’s their business, not mine. Best not to get caught up in those hang ups haha.

[joelf]

All this discussion is making me think (and as my 5th grade teacher Miss Gluck would say 'I can smell the wood burning'.)

A guy, a very egotistical guy, once said 'If I play a cliche, not an idea. I become analytical hearing it played back. I think "I didn't mean to play that. What did I mean to play"?'

Prick though he is in every way (having known him since I was 23, and he did teach me good stuff back then) his point is well-taken. I call his procedure 'studying with yourself'. You listen analytically, not neurotically, to your recorded output and find what's good and your own.

And build on it. The foundation of the house will have been designed by an architect known as you. And if certain bricks didn't work out or look like they fit you can always toss 'em and start again...

[joelf]

(see also jazz and poverty.

See also jazz and poverty?

I am jazz and poverty!...

[Christian Miller]

A lot of this discussion reminds me of the sort of stuff on my reading list during my masters.

I paraphrase slightly from Elliott, Greene etc but this was a commonly voiced view, see if you agree

’mainstream music education is fixated on aesthetic objects such as scores and music is to be appreciated as if it landed from Mars without social context. In contrast jazz is centred on praxis and has no definitive aesthetic objects.’

’music should move away from aesthetics and towards social praxis. improvisation plays an important part in this.’

(if you forgive the authentically wanky wording. More x’s than strictly necessary I would say.)

I have my own thoughts on this position, which you hear a lot in music education circles. Elliott and Greene are very influential.