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

[James W]

You keep repeating yourself. Despite a ton of posts explaining it, not only from me, you're still repeating what you said in the first place. There's nothing nebulous about it. It's an ordinary English expression and it absolutely has meaning in this context.

My point is that it's a misnomer.

Yes, it's true that it's one of those things that can't really be reduced to dry fact but that's no excuse. If you tried to describe what a banana or lemon tastes like to someone who's never tasted them I doubt if you'd ever succeed. But you can't say those particular flavours are nebulous or wishy-washy or anything else. They exist, it's a fact.

There certainly exist spirit and magic in music, it's true. What I question is the usefulness of this in the context of advice to give someone. It's something that I feel has very limited utility - unless, of course you just take it to mean all the things involved in learning a song, as Peter said above. That's the problem with it - you can apparently ascribe all sorts of things to 'spirit of the song'. How many words have we typed now discussing this damn phrase? That ought to be evidence enough that it has failed.

You keep saying you only want concrete concepts, like knowing the key and the tempo of a tune. Obviously one needs those things, that goes without saying. But they are simply necessary, they won't by themselves make for good improvisation. What makes for good improvisation is knowing the song, having a feeling for the song, and having the necessary skills to produce something meaningful musically, that's all.

Some of that can be taught, in fact most of it can, but there's the other factor can't be taught and that comes from the player himself. Personally, I find it extremely hard to play tunes I can't relate to. That may be the case for most of us, I wouldn't know.

You'll say you know all this, I'm waiting for it! But, if you really do, why are we having this discussion? There's no question you're putting up a wall against something. The question is what and why.

Nothing to disagree with here. Yes, I favour concrete concepts in the context of teaching someone, or learning something. Or to learn by copying someone's demonstration of something.

[JazzPadd]

Like many others have already noted , it depends on context and how well I know a tune.

For the past several years my context has most often been jam sessions, with a few solo sets and a couple of band sets.

Solo sets without a looper are beyond my ability so I don’t stray too far from the melody and straight forward changes. Even with a looper, I prefer to play over an interesting 2-4 chord vamp extracted from the changes. In any case, solo and band sets both involve rehearsals and some, if not most, aspects tend to be worked out in advance.

For jam sessions, in which I participate at a few different venues several times a month, what tune and how it’s played is for the most part chart dependent much of the time. Charts can be limiting, in some ways, but I find having several hundred tunes to draw from provides a common core so that anyone join and jam any time. So, depending on who is there and the ecology of a venue, what we jam on is partly predictable but with lots of room for spontaneity. In these cases, I read if needed, listen carefully, and try to take short solos based on some combination of melody and changes. If I know a tune well, I may take more chances and play what comes to mind and gets under my fingers in the moment.

[ragman1]

Yes, I favour concrete concepts in the context of teaching someone, or learning something. Or to learn by copying someone's demonstration of something.

All right, that will teach you the mechanics of music, certainly. But a machine can do it quicker. Where is the human content? Are we merely complex machines that repeat what we've learned?

[st.bede]

… not to be too enamored of a dialectical process, and also to try avoid dualism and reductionism… my limited experience suggests that in jazz there is often a synthesis of Apollonian and Dionysian forces… I assume the idea of the spirit of a song would have to engage with these contradictory focus. How much “archeology” that needs to take place is an open ended question and based on particularities. Spirit suggests something that has an element of fluidity, with an acknowledgement to history.

I have noticed a desire for specifics in this thread to be asked for. There are also specific elements to creativity.

[AllanAllen]

… not to be too enamored of a dialectical process, and also to try avoid dualism and reductionism… my limited experience suggests that in jazz there is often a synthesis of Apollonian and Dionysian forces… I assume the idea of the spirit of a song would have to engage with these contradictory focus. How much “archeology” that needs to take place is an open ended question and based on particularities. Spirit suggests something that has an element of fluidity, with an acknowledgement to history.

I have noticed a desire for specifics in this thread to be asked for. There are also specific elements to creativity.

I'm so completely lost with these fancy words...

[st.bede]

I would break it down… but I have to have some coffee and wake up..

[John A.]

… not to be too enamored of a dialectical process, and also to try avoid dualism and reductionism… my limited experience suggests that in jazz there is often a synthesis of Apollonian and Dionysian forces… I assume the idea of the spirit of a song would have to engage with these contradictory focus. How much “archeology” that needs to take place is an open ended question and based on particularities. Spirit suggests something that has an element of fluidity, with an acknowledgement to history.

I have noticed a desire for specifics in this thread to be asked for. There are also specific elements to creativity.

And so tragedy is born.

[st.bede]

Omg…. Lol

(I am not sure how important Neitsche is as a philosopher, but he is so fun to read. I also tend to hate polemics but his are so good).

[st.bede]

I'm so completely lost with these fancy words...

I just wrote a lot that I accidentally lost… you can look this stuff up online… when I get a chance I can address these thoughts. Maybe I can send you a message. That way I can address specific questions. How important it is to making music, I can not tell. Sometimes it feels really important, but often it seems to be only descriptive of the process we are all doing anyway. I do warn you, I am just a big fish in a small pond.

[Bop Head]

Omg…. Lol

(I am not sure how important Neitsche is as a philosopher, but he is so fun to read. I also tend to hate polemics but his are so good).

You probably mean Friedrich Nietzsche.

[John A.]

Omg…. Lol

(I am not sure how important Neitsche is as a philosopher, but he is so fun to read. I also tend to hate polemics but his are so good).

That's pretty how much how the entire field of philosophy feels about him.

[st.bede]

You probably mean Friedrich Nietzsche.

… yes, my spelling has always been horrendous…

[st.bede]

That's pretty how much how the entire field of philosophy feels about him.

Yes, in this area I find myself in agreement… on the other hand, I think it is more important to be exposed to ideas and have a chance to think about them. Nietzsche can be very useful for that. He can also be useful in the area of lit crit.

I also would argue that he has been difficult to politically appropriate. I always appreciate that. (I am aware that people have tried to, and the historic negativity of that).

Personally, I am more interested in phenomenology, Hedgier, and Kant. I think those tend to be more useful for artistic
processes. (I do know of the Hedgier issue, but I find Wagner even more troubling). However, as I stated earlier, I am only an armchair type thinker. Few situations arise where I can “practice my chops”. I am living in the sticks, that often reminds me of the Zola novel La Terra.

[Christian Miller]

Yer Apollonian nerds play strummy things and talk shop
Yer Dionysians blow down tubes and get absolutely lathered

I buy it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bop Head]

Yes, in this area I find myself in agreement… on the other hand, I think it is more important to be exposed to ideas and have a chance to think about them. Nietzsche can be very useful for that. He can also be useful in the area of lit crit.

I also would argue that he has been difficult to politically appropriate. I always appreciate that. (I am aware that people have tried to, and the historic negativity of that).

Personally, I am more interested in phenomenology, Hedgier, and Kant. I think those tend to be more useful for artistic
processes. (I do know of the Hedgier issue, but I find Wagner even more troubling). However, as I stated earlier, I am only an armchair type thinker. Few situations arise where I can “practice my chops”. I am living in the sticks, that often reminds me of the Zola novel La Terra.

You mean Martin Heidegger?

Wagner is often reduced to his antisemitic writings. Few know that he was interested in Proudhon and Feuerbach and even met Bakunin. He worked closely together with Hermann Levi, the Jewish conductor of Munich's (then royal) opera house and later conductor at Bayreuth.

BTW if you are interested in phenomenology: Do you know the Phenomenology of Music by conductor Sergiu Celibidache?

[John A.]

Yes, in this area I find myself in agreement… on the other hand, I think it is more important to be exposed to ideas and have a chance to think about them. Nietzsche can be very useful for that. He can also be useful in the area of lit crit.

I also would argue that he has been difficult to politically appropriate. I always appreciate that. (I am aware that people have tried to, and the historic negativity of that).

Personally, I am more interested in phenomenology, Hedgier, and Kant. I think those tend to be more useful for artistic
processes. (I do know of the Hedgier issue, but I find Wagner even more troubling). However, as I stated earlier, I am only an armchair type thinker. Few situations arise where I can “practice my chops”. I am living in the sticks, that often reminds me of the Zola novel La Terra.

I majored in philosophy in college and and read tons of Nietzsche, some Heidegger, and a fair bit of Kant. Nietzsche's overall tone and iconoclastic shtick was kind of fun, but it seemed so scattershot that I was never really sure what he was getting at. Heidegger, oy vey. Could be worse, though. I mean Hegel. Gadzooks. That guy is a freakin' neurotoxin cable of inducing coma with a single sentence (that goes on for 27 pages without a verb until the end).

[voxo]

no intension of playing with others..i did once..room was packed with tenor players...Cacophony..maybe Charles Ives would have appreciated it..think it was C Jam Blues..quite happy with the Box players...lol

[JazzPadd]

I had a teacher a long time ago, he was the author of “Urban Blues” and who also wrote an essay about Apollonian and Dionysian approaches to music. He used one of the old blues masters, I forget which one, as an example of the two cohabiting in the same person. On stage, he suggested that this performer was in Dionysian mode, playing with wild abandon, reveling in the joy of moment, throwing caution to the wind, mistakes and all. However, in the recording studio the same performer doing the same tunes was in Apollonian mode, a perfectionist, demanding numerous takes do get things exactly to his specs onto the tape.

[princeplanet]

no intension of playing with others..i did once..room was packed with tenor players...Cacophony..maybe Charles Ives would have appreciated it..think it was C Jam Blues..quite happy with the Box players...lol

Hey voxo, I know you've been a long time advocate of BIAB (so much so, you might even be a shill! ). I hear ya though, sometimes playing with a backing track can be more fun than playing with amateur musicians along with the insecurities and egos that go with that trip. Not everyone gets to play with good musicians who actually want to you sound better than you really are...

[GuyBoden]

Back to the original thread.

Maybe, the problem is that in Jazz we are taught to practice many things in isolation of the actual songs.

Examples:
Chord Tones.
Arpeggios.
Approach Notes.
Enclosures.
ii-V-I and other progressions.

[pamosmusic]

Back to the original thread.

Maybe, the problem is that in Jazz we are taught to practice many things in isolation of the actual songs.

Examples:
Chord Tones.
Arpeggios.
Approach Notes.
Enclosures.
ii-V-I and other progressions.

Well these are all very important things to practice … so I guess the question becomes, how do you practice them so that they sound like part of the actual song?

[James W]

Back to the original thread.

Maybe, the problem is that in Jazz we are taught to practice many things in isolation of the actual songs.

Examples:
Chord Tones.
Arpeggios.
Approach Notes.
Enclosures.
ii-V-I and other progressions.

I think there is reason to both practice them in isolation and as part of actual songs. In the same way that ideally it's good to learn lots of songs, like maybe one a week, while at the same time using just a few tunes to dive deeply into over the course of months.

So you practice in isolation because it makes sense to abstract patterns such as the 2-5-1 that appear in lots of standards. But at the same time each standard is unique in some way, and you want to apply stuff to actual songs.

[AllanAllen]

no intension of playing with others..i did once..room was packed with tenor players...Cacophony..maybe Charles Ives would have appreciated it..think it was C Jam Blues..quite happy with the Box players...lol

You gotta get uncomfortable to grow.

[mr. beaumont]

Maybe, the problem is that in Jazz we are taught to practice many things in isolation of the actual songs.
.

We are?

Yikes, not if I was teaching it. But then again, nobody's biting on my "How Not to Completely Suck at Jazz in Ten Years of Hard Work" course, so...

[pamosmusic]

We are?

Yikes, not if I was teaching it. But then again, nobody's biting on my "How Not to Completely Suck at Jazz in Ten Years of Hard Work" course, so...

Right. I think it’s more like taking things out of tunes to transpose into other keys and work on in isolation before putting them back in context. Which is not quite the same thing.

For me that’s like using a scale passage in a Villa Lobos etude to work up speed, rather than playing bursts all day on the Segovia scales. Both are decent ideas but one is way more interesting and musically rewarding.