When you solo over a song, are you playing a chord progression or the song?

[ragman1]

I think terms like the 'spirit' of the song is far too subjective to be helpful.

That word isn't some poetic or romantic expression, it just means the overall feeling of a tune, or the feeling it awakens in you. If you're insensitive it probably won't mean much. A mind which is terribly cerebral, stuffed with technicalities, is very partial and won't understand much. Nor will a mind which is just emotional and gushes.

So it implies an overall sensitivity, not a partial one. It's not merely intellectual or emotional in separate compartments, it's understanding the tune as a whole. When you say subjective you're quite right, the feeling for anything is always subjective, and there's nothing wrong with that. If you have no response at all you'd be a bit dead. But it depends on the quality of that feeling, whether it's a superficial response or has depth. And then you play from that.

So there has to be a fusion, as it were, between the feeling for the tune and the technical skills needed to express that feeling. There's the problem. But the more honed one's skills and the more infused the tune is in one the better the delivery. But all that requires time, patience and application. In short, the more one puts into it, the more comes out of it.

But a real player, of course, is never satisfied, simply because the expression rarely matches the feeling he has initially. I think there are some Wes Montgomery tunes with (take 8) on them. They don't just bounce in and dash it off, there's always that feeling of incompleteness that impels them to try it again. And so we suffer for our art, and not just musicians!

[mr. beaumont]

Somebody wiser than me once said "if the tune has words, you should be aware of them and what they're about."

[ragman1]

In fact there's this one that went to take 9.

[ragman1]

Somebody wiser than me once said "if the tune has words, you should be aware of them and what they're about."

Absolutely. If a tune has lyrics they'll convey the feeling more than the music itself. Probably provided the two were composed together rather than added much later like with some tunes.

Strangely, I think it was Kind Of Blue (of all albums) where it was all take one. They just started and did it. Pah, not fair!

[pamosmusic]

That word isn't some poetic or romantic expression, it just means the overall feeling of a tune, or the feeling it awakens in you. If you're insensitive it probably won't mean much. A mind which is terribly cerebral, stuffed with technicalities, is very partial and won't understand much. Nor will a mind which is just emotional and gushes.

So it implies an overall sensitivity, not a partial one. It's not merely intellectual or emotional in separate compartments, it's understanding the tune as a whole. When you say subjective you're quite right, the feeling for anything is always subjective, and there's nothing wrong with that. If you have no response at all you'd be a bit dead. But it depends on the quality of that feeling, whether it's a superficial response or has depth. And then you play from that.

So there has to be a fusion, as it were, between the feeling for the tune and the technical skills needed to express that feeling. There's the problem. But the more honed one's skills and the more infused the tune is in one the better the delivery. But all that requires time, patience and application. In short, the more one puts into it, the more comes out of it.

But a real player, of course, is never satisfied, simply because the expression rarely matches the feeling he has initially. I think there are some Wes Montgomery tunes with (take 8) on them. They don't just bounce in and dash it off, there's always that feeling of incompleteness that impels them to try it again. And so we suffer for our art, and not just musicians!

Right … I mean … just taking a look at something like Rhythm-n-ing and and Dexterity. Rhythm changes, same key, roughly the same tempo, but I think you could say pretty safely that a needle drop in the middle of the solo section of one should be enough to know which is which.

Because of the vibes. Which are of course capable of description by other more concrete means … time feel, stuff like that.

But still. Vibes.

[Christian Miller]

Somebody wiser than me once said "if the tune has words, you should be aware of them and what they're about."

Helps me remember the tune tbh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John A.]

I think terms like the 'spirit' of the song is far too subjective to be helpful.

If you’re the one playing the tune, your subjective sense of the spirit of the tune is what matters. You explain your interpretation and feeling through what and how you play, not through discussion.

To the original question, I try to think of a solo as a composition. There are sections where you explore the motifs and implications of the head and places where you explore implications of the harmony. There are also interludes where you stray far from both. Exactly what the mix turns out to be on a given tune depends on the players, the tune, the setting, etc.

All that said, always learn the melody, and never learn just the changes.

[James W]

If you’re the one playing the tune, your subjective sense of the spirit of the tune is what matters. You explain your interpretation and feeling through what and how you play, not through discussion.

To this, and to Ragman's posts above I say: 'No shit'.

However, taken as advice, simply saying someone must play the spirit of a song is too vague and wishy-washy, as well as subjective. I get that a teacher should demonstrate by how they play, but it would be useful to say the least if they could articulate at least some aspects of what they think a student should do to improve verbally i.e. discussion. And discussion ought to involve at least some concrete ideas like melody embellishment, which is what Ragman stated that playing the song shouldn't involve and instead invoked 'the spirit of the song' which IMO wouldn't be helpful for the reasons I've already stated.

[ragman1]

However, taken as advice, simply saying someone must play the spirit of a song is too vague and wishy-washy, as well as subjective.

I explained it. To be honest, you either get it or you don't. It's not vague at all if you understand it. The song/tune is what it is. How vague it is depends on you, not the tune.

Obviously the feeling of the whole thing isn't the only factor, as I said before. You need the musical skills to convey the feel. I'm not saying getting the feel of it is the only factor. That would definitely be hopelessly vague!

You've heard 'once more with feeling'? Of course. That's the point. You can play a tune mechanically, note perfect and all that, but without any feeling there's not much point to it.

[John A.]

To this, and to Ragman's posts above I say: 'No shit'.

However, taken as advice, simply saying someone must play the spirit of a song is too vague and wishy-washy, as well as subjective. I get that a teacher should demonstrate by how they play, but it would be useful to say the least if they could articulate at least some aspects of what they think a student should do to improve verbally i.e. discussion. And discussion ought to involve at least some concrete ideas like melody embellishment, which is what Ragman stated that playing the song shouldn't involve and instead invoked 'the spirit of the song' which IMO wouldn't be helpful for the reasons I've already stated.

I wasn’t giving advice. I was just saying that the subjectivity of the spirit of a song does not pose the problem you think it does to a performer.

There are also objective elements to “spirit”, such as context in which it was written, lyrics, history of performance or recording, etc. People can talk about those things and use them to draw out their own feelings. E.g., the biographical context for My Funny Valentine, or the setting of Girl from Ipanema.

Ultimately how I feel about one of those songs and how you feel are subjective and personal, but that doesn’t stop us from playing them and (ideally) conveying our feeling to others.

[AllanAllen]

Not necessarily. I mean, Coltrane plays lots of notes...

Miles Davis said Coltrane started playing for himself instead of the song and that’s what killed the band.

Also, this version is too fast. It kills the feel.

[James W]

I explained it. To be honest, you either get it or you don't. It's not vague at all if you understand it. The song/tune is what it is. How vague it is depends on you, not the tune.

Yes, your explanation just involved, as I intimated above, of obvious things. I wasn't saying the song was vague, I just said that your advice, of playing the spirit of the song, was vague and as such of limited usefulness. More useful advice might involve concrete concepts.

I am aware that Miles Davis was apt to make koan-like utterances that would elicit special performances from his already world-class musicians, such as telling John McLaughlin to play the guitar like he didn't know how to play it. But I find it hard to believe he'd tell someone to play the spirit of the song. For one thing, if it's a new tune, then that advice is even less applicable. And it's far too woolly.

[ragman1]

Miles Davis said Coltrane started playing for himself instead of the song and that’s what killed the band.

Absolutely. I hadn't heard that before but I've often thought that about a lot of Coltrane's stuff. I think if you practice as much as he did, presumably in solitude, what you play in a group setting is going start sounding like you're still doing it for yourself.

[James W]

I wasn’t giving advice. I was just saying that the subjectivity of the spirit of a song does not pose the problem you think it does to a performer.

There are also objective elements to “spirit”, such as context in which it was written, lyrics, history of performance or recording, etc. People can talk about those things and use them to draw out their own feelings. E.g., the biographical context for My Funny Valentine, or the setting of Girl from Ipanema.

Ultimately how I feel about one of those songs and how you feel are subjective and personal, but that doesn’t stop us from playing them and (ideally) conveying our feeling to others.

I never said the spirit of a song posed a problem to a performer - my point was that, in the context of a thread inquiring about how people should approach playing songs, that the advice of playing the spirit of the song is not particularly useful, and not particularly meaningful, to me at least.

I welcome and concur with your concrete & objective suggestions on playing standards, though I wouldn't file those under the rubric 'spirit'.

[James W]

Miles Davis said Coltrane started playing for himself instead of the song and that’s what killed the band.

Also, this version is too fast. It kills the feel.

Aww not your cup of tea? That's too bad...

Be interested to know what your source is for that quote. I just checked Miles's autobiography, and yeah, Trane quit after the European tour, so I don't see how that relates to what you've attributed to Miles, which suggests Miles wasn't happy with how Trane was playing.

[ragman1]

Yes, your explanation just involved, as I intimated above, of obvious things. I wasn't saying the song was vague, I just said that your advice, of playing the spirit of the song, was vague and as such of limited usefulness. More useful advice might involve concrete concepts

If you reduce it to 'concrete concepts' it would probably become merely intellectual. You can't really reduce a feeling to concrete concepts except verbally.

I mean, take two extreme examples. A happy, bouncy tune in a major key and a slower, more introspective tune in a minor key. Obviously they have widely different effects on the nervous system, right? That's all, and that difference becomes more subtle with every tune. Which in turn affects the way you'll play it.

So, as I said, what a player gets from a tune depends a lot on how sensitive and receptive they are. It's not really mysterious.

it's far too woolly.

Good joke (!) but it sounds like you're still not really getting the point. And it's not a difficult point.

[pamosmusic]

Absolutely. I hadn't heard that before but I've often thought that about a lot of Coltrane's stuff. I think if you practice as much as he did, presumably in solitude, what you play in a group setting is going start sounding like you're still doing it for yourself.

HEY

Be nice to my friend Trane

[pamosmusic]

If you reduce it to 'concrete concepts' it would probably become merely intellectual. You can't really reduce a feeling to concrete concepts except verbally.

I mean, take two extreme examples. A happy, bouncy tune in a major key and a slower, more introspective tune in a minor key. Obviously they have widely different effects on the nervous system, right? That's all, and that difference becomes more subtle with every tune. Which in turn affects the way you'll play it.

So, as I said, what a player gets from a tune depends a lot on how sensitive and receptive they are. It's not really mysterious.



Good joke (!) but it sounds like you're still not really getting the point. And it's not a difficult point.

Well this is interesting.

I think you probably can reduce “feeling” to some concrete concepts but never quite get to the point where there isn’t “vibing” involved.

Like what I mentioned about time-feel. It’s a concrete thing, but also extremely difficult to quantify in specific detail the way you could with tempo or something. So it’s still super useful to point out some aspects of what makes one tune “feel” different without worrying that pointing those out will strip the feeling out of the song at all.

[AllanAllen]

Aww not your cup of tea? That's too bad...

Be interested to know what your source is for that quote. I just checked Miles's autobiography, and yeah, Trane quit after the European tour, so I don't see how that relates to what you've attributed to Miles, which suggests Miles wasn't happy with how Trane was playing.

The Netflix Doc Birth of the Cool. I don’t know what their source is. I can hear him blowing self indulgent bullshit that’s not related to the tune or what the other guys are doing.

[James W]

If you reduce it to 'concrete concepts' it would probably become merely intellectual. You can't really reduce a feeling to concrete concepts except verbally.

Not seeking to reduce anything, just saying that practical advice is more useful in most - not all, but most - contexts to invoking things like the spirit of a song. Anything outside of practical, concrete and objective suggestions isn't of much use to most people, I would submit, and that does not necessarily mean that these suggestions are necessarily merely intellectual.

I mean, take two extreme examples. A happy, bouncy tune in a major key and a slower, more introspective tune in a minor key. Obviously they have widely different effects on the nervous system, right? That's all, and that difference becomes more subtle with every tune. Which in turn affects the way you'll play it.

Yeah, like I say, no sh*t, Sherlock, these are obvious concrete things that I can't see relate to some kind of spirit.

So, as I said, what a player gets from a tune depends a lot on how sensitive and receptive they are. It's not really mysterious.

Good joke (!) but it sounds like you're still not really getting the point. And it's not a difficult point.

Ok, ok. I think confusion was because the language you used of invoking the spirit of a song, when pretty much every subsequent post you've made explaining it has just been very obvious - to the point of being patronising - stuff that relates to concrete reality.

I get your point - if you can call it that - several times over, it's just couched in terms like playing the 'spirit of the song' which I reject.

[John A.]

I never said the spirit of a song posed a problem to a performer - my point was that, in the context of a thread inquiring about how people should approach playing songs, that the advice of playing the spirit of the song is not particularly useful, and not particularly meaningful, to me at least.

I welcome and concur with your concrete & objective suggestions on playing standards, though I wouldn't file those under the rubric 'spirit'.

I would. But not a hill worth dying on. I’d rather play than type.

[pamosmusic]

The Netflix Doc Birth of the Cool. I don’t know what their source is. I can hear him blowing self indulgent bullshit that’s not related to the tune or what the other guys are doing.

I SAID

Be nice to my friend Trane

[AllanAllen]

I SAID

Be nice to my friend Trane

I like some of his stuff. The album with Duke Ellington, the one with Kenny Burrell, the Miles Davis albums. His albums before 1965…

[James W]

Absolutely. I hadn't heard that before but I've often thought that about a lot of Coltrane's stuff. I think if you practice as much as he did, presumably in solitude, what you play in a group setting is going start sounding like you're still doing it for yourself.

Ah yes. Remember, kids, Coltrane is a cautionary tale of what happens when you practice too much - you just might become incredibly successful and alter the course of music history and become a jazz legend with his own church!

[pingu]

i solo over the chords mainly
and if i’ve got headroom i will
reference tune too

that way round tho