Playing the changes vs. playing over the key center

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

I *practice* with my brain. That’s not how everyone needs to practice, but the theory tells me what might work, and I train my ear to hear it while I’m practicing.

I don’t generally find the disdain for people who think through changes using whatever theoretical terms they find helpful to be terribly productive

But you don’t do that while performing. You’re describing a classic exercise for performance improvement in any effort that requires complex interaction among motor skills, sensory input, memory, strategic thinking, imagination, etc.

I’m a lifelong auto racer. We use the same approach when learning a track and when preparing to race at one. It’s called bench racing, and every successful racer I know does it. I prefer to do it in a quiet place while reclining comfortably with no distractions (usually after getting in bed for the night). I close my eyes and visualize myself driving lap after lap, “seeing” every little detail I can remember.

I visualize everything around the track, as well as on and in it. A tiny discolored patch can be used as a visible indicator of a braking or turn-in point. A seam in the pavement or curbing is as constant a reference as a downbeat. I know from which positions I can best see the field and exactly when my mirrors will again show them when traversing elevations and curves.

I usually do a minimum of 25 to 30 laps at tracks I know well from racing there dozens of times. For a new track, I review a track map and watch films of races there long before I arrive. I walk the entire track a few times the day I get there, and I bench race after every practice session.

This is common practice for successful participants in all active endeavors - MLB, NBA, NHL, NASCAR, PGA, etc. River pilots do it. Fighter pilots do it. Ballet dancers do it. Chess players do it. The benefit for all is a subliminal mental imprint that guides and frees your brain for more imaginative use when doing the deed. It’s also how I approach playing.

I neither feel nor expressed any disdain for taking theory seriously. It’s an integral part of “bench gigging”. But I can’t imagine thinking through all of the concepts in this thread while performing. Theory’s great for shaping your concepts. But to my ears, it makes the playing of those who constantly try to integrate it into live improvisation on the fly sound arbitrary and artificial.

[Tal_175]

I neither feel nor expressed any disdain for taking theory seriously. It’s an integral part of “bench gigging”. But I can’t imagine thinking through all of the concepts in this thread while performing. Theory’s great for shaping your concepts. But to my ears, it makes the playing of those who constantly try to integrate it into live improvisation on the fly sound arbitrary and artificial.

The term theory is general to the extent of being meaningless when talking about a musician's process. That's why I prefer to ask if you have any conscious awareness of any chord you're playing on or the chord that you are moving towards at any point in your playing, performing or practicing whether that's a tune that you know well or a tune that's new to you?

[pamosmusic]

But you don’t do that while performing. You’re describing a classic exercise for performance improvement in any effort that requires complex interaction among motor skills, sensory input, memory, strategic thinking, imagination, etc.

Is this not what we were talking about though?

I neither feel nor expressed any disdain for taking theory seriously. It’s an integral part of “bench gigging”. But I can’t imagine thinking through all of the concepts in this thread while performing. Theory’s great for shaping your concepts. But to my ears, it makes the playing of those who constantly try to integrate it into live improvisation on the fly sound arbitrary and artificial.

Well … not to be difficult, but:

Rigid insistence on using theory to define what you play seems “anal retentive” to me. It’s probably the most common cause of chronic chordal constipation.

When someone describes a process using the word “constipation” I do tend to read that as disdain.

I know you’re going to say that you were talking about “performance and not practice” which is fine. But you were replying directly to another person without considering that perhaps they were talking about practice and not performance.

A follow up question to me would be, how would you know that a person who you feel sounds canned and artificial is thinking about theory when they’re playing?

I suppose I could tell you how I feel when I hear someone who I can tell hasn’t thought very deeply about what they’re doing and relies on a (usually insufficiently trained) ear to make their way through a tune.

[Bobby Timmons]

It took me about 5 minutes to figure out everything I needed to know for how to approach jazz soloing. I scanned through the Charlie Parker omnibook and realized, 'good lord, he's outlining every single chord.' So at that point, I knew people who'd say theory is a hindrance and you just have to be musical about it were full of it. To me, CP is the most archetypal and greatest soloist in the history of jazz so I should probably follow his model.

My goal is to practice the material until I can let rhythms and phrases flow freely while playing. If I have to think about the material in performance to the point that it hinders my rhythm or that I can't be creative with it, then I need to practice more. But I do still think about it a little. I disagree with the idea that everything has to be 100% aural creativity, since playing the music correctly which includes outlining the changes is a requirement in my view.

[pamosmusic]

I scanned through the Charlie Parker omnibook and realized, 'good lord, he's outlining every single chord.'

I think this might take a generous view of what chords are there. I think Bird generalizes a bit more than we sometimes think. Not tons and tons, mind you, but a bit. Lots of blues, lots of chunked ii-Vs. Then again he also will add some chords that aren’t in the written changes.

So at that point, I knew people who'd say theory is a hindrance and you just have to be musical about it were full of it.

People do say this, but in fairness, I don’t think anyone was saying this here.

But I do still think about it a little. I disagree with the idea that everything has to be 100% aural creativity, since playing the music correctly which includes outlining the changes is a requirement in my view.

This I would agree with. I’d love to say I’m creative all the time but when I’m absolutely smoking, I’m probably like 80% ear, and when it’s just not happening, it’s probably 80% brain and muscle memory. So it’s a spectrum. And I think that’s true of everyone, even though a lot of people don’t like to admit it.

[Bobby Timmons]

I think this might take a generous view of what chords are there. I think Bird generalizes a bit more than we sometimes think. Not tons and tons, mind you, but a bit. Lots of blues, lots of chunked ii-Vs. Then again he also will add some chords that aren’t in the written changes.

He does it to the point that you can tell that's his method.

People do say this, but in fairness, I don’t think anyone was saying this here.

I didn't say they were saying that. nevershouldhavesoldit didn't go into detail about how much theory to use in practice vs performance. He made an analogy about using some theory during practice and said you don't want to think about it during performance.

This I would agree with. I’d love to say I’m creative all the time but when I’m absolutely smoking, I’m probably like 80% ear, and when it’s just not happening, it’s probably 80% brain and muscle memory. So it’s a spectrum. And I think that’s true of everyone, even though a lot of people don’t like to admit it.

My goal is to sound good. So if that means I'm calculating everything 110% during performance then idgaf. Realistically tho, what's most effective for humans, this means theory-ing it up during practice, learning how to be creative with it, and getting it into your instincts. Then during performance try to allow your technique and ear to take over to shape something musical and not theory everything in the moment how you explained.

[Tal_175]

If you have awareness of the chord of the moment and the chord (or chord group) you are leading to and if that awareness informs how you navigate the fretboard and the vocabulary you use, then you are well into the territory of what some people call theory.

That is regardless of:
- How little mental effort it takes you to do that because you know the tune well or you been doing this a long time.
- How often you need to do it. Even if that's not the only way you play and you only do this when you need a bit of creative push here and there.
- How the use of this awareness varies during practice sessions vs performance. What you practice becomes available during performance with less effort.

So that's why I don't understand when people say having an harmonic approach to playing over E7 in All of Me is too much thinking? It would be too much thinking if you are discovering the dominant chord the first time when you play the tune. But presumably you have developed your approaches to various dominant situations and ingrained them into your muscle memory and your ears in the many years prior to the performance.

Unless of course they have a completely visceral, aural approach and don't even know what E7 is (which I'd respect but I don't think any one on the forum who can play jazz falls into this category).

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

When someone describes a process using the word “constipation” I do tend to read that as disdain.

And I thought it was funny. I was trying to say in a lighthearted way that I think ideas can't flow freely from a mind that's blocked up with rules and constraints. Would a stuffy nose be a more palatable choice of symbolism for you?

A follow up question to me would be, how would you know that a person who you feel sounds canned and artificial is thinking about theory when they’re playing?

They tell me. I'm always trying to learn and understand, so I ask many of those with whom I play or to whom I listen how they get their ideas and turn them into music. In my experience and opinion (which may be wildly different from yours), those who base their approaches primariy on theory improvise in a regimented and repetitive way. They may be all over the fretboard, inside and outside the changes, in blinding displays of speed. But much of their improvisation follows similar melodic and harmonic lines because they've internalized the templates they prefer and follow them.

Many of our idols have described their detailed thought processes in lessons, interviews and articles. They follow, espouse, and teach a systematic approach to playing their way. Pat Martino could play a line all night at 250+ following his matrix approach to the fretboard, his tight cluster concept, his augmented triad system, etc. But he had it all stored inside his head and didn't have to think about it. By the time he reached his twenties, he was a seasoned pro. He'd already developed his basic approach and it was just the way he played. Studying with Dennis Sandole helped him mature his entire approach to music, but he aleady had his own style by the time he was 20.

I met him in the summer of 1964 when he was playing with Willlis Jackson at Club Harlem in Atlantic City. My trio played the Golden Inn in Avalon NJ that summer, but I lived in AC and came home every night after our gig - so I got to hear him a lot. My drummer's father owned the drug store in the President Hotel, so I worked at the lunch counter most days. Pat ate his beakfast there almost every day, and I made & served it. So I got to talk to him a lot, and I picked his brain because he was aleady a rising star and I was a local hack trying to get better (which I still am).

I loved the guy, and I love his playing. But it's fairly rigidly bound by his theoretical approach and his playing style. So are / were many of the greats, and you know this as well as I do. They stopp(ed) having to think much about anything while playing - they have/had their approackes down and are/were free to play as their imaginations took them. But those who bound themselves to a rigidly defined theoretical basis for their improvisations usually sounded like it. And those who try hard to sound like their idols but haven't internalized the various frameworks they need for the sound they want struggle to remember and follow them as they play. I think I can hear this clearly, and this is validated by many when I ask them about their styles and how they're thinking.

[equenda]

....omissis....

The fastest way is to find a teacher that can play the way you like (plenty will not) and get ready for a long, frustrating journey, but ultimately rewarding. There is much to learn, far too much to list in a forum post. There is a system of knowledge and practice you need to put in place, and unfortunately, there is wild variation in the way this can be shown. Every player or teacher evolves their own unique path to this knowledge (that's why everyone in this thread is giving different advice), and you will need to develop your own at some point. This is also a good thing, right? You don't wanna sound like anyone else after years of study.

I'd also like to add that chasing the changes, and landing on your feet, is better than sex!

There, I said it!

Thank-You/Grazie mille, PrincePlanet! Can I print your whole post and put it on the wall on my workshop??

Ettore

[Bobby Timmons]

@nevershouldhavesoldit. You can point out weaknesses to ear players too, that doesn't mean it proves the entire practice as inferior. They generally sound like they're just running one lame scale over the nice complex backing. What they think are creative ideas they're shaping don't sound any more creative than engineered ones, they often sound worse lol. Doesn't mean using your ear to help you is wrong any more than using theory as a tool to help you is wrong.

[mr. beaumont]

Best ear players I ever met had a solid music theory foundation as well.

The two are not mutually exclusive, and this argument is absolutely pointless.

[Tal_175]

@nevershouldhavesoldit. You can point out weaknesses to ear players too, that doesn't mean it proves the entire practice as inferior. They generally sound like they're just running one lame scale over the nice complex backing. What they think are creative ideas they're shaping don't sound any more creative than engineered ones, they often sound worse lol. Doesn't mean using your ear to help you is wrong any more than using theory as a tool to help you is wrong.

Although to be fair we don't know what nevershouldavesoldit's approach to improvisation is yet. We know what it is not.

[pamosmusic]

Best ear players I ever met had a solid music theory foundation as well.

The two are not mutually exclusive, and this argument is absolutely pointless.

+1

[Bobby Timmons]

Although to be fair we don't know what nevershouldavesoldit's approach to improvisation is yet. We know what it is not.

That's true. He hasn't stated his premise, he's alluded to it. A prerequisite to effective debate are all parties need to state their premise first, then back it up. Not argue without a premise.

[pamosmusic]

And I thought it was funny. I was trying to say in a lighthearted way that I think ideas can't flow freely from a mind that's blocked up with rules and constraints. Would a stuffy nose be a more palatable choice of symbolism for you?

Well if I meet a stranger on the street, the pollen count and "geez this allergy season is brutal" are generally acceptable topics for small talk. The alternative, not so much.

So yes. Generally I would say a stuffy nose would be a more palatable choice of symbolism for me.

[Tal_175]

Also I am particularly interested in hearing about nevershouldavesoldit's approach because he is a very good player.

[pamosmusic]

But much of their improvisation follows similar melodic and harmonic lines because they've internalized the templates they prefer and follow them.

In general I think this gets a bad rap.

Grant Green will use the same lick over the same place in a tune on four choruses in a row.

I'm quite left-brain, as I think we've established, but the differences in the way people sound usually boils down to the way we break down what we like. Jeff and I both like a lot of Ed Bickert and Grant Green. But we transcribe different solos. Or we transcribe the same solo but really identify with different licks. Or we both like the same lick and end up conceptualizing it in a different way. At the end of the day, we tend to talk about the same people in the same way, but sound very very different when we play. So those theoretical constructs can be pretty important, separate and apart from whether either of us feels "bound" or "limited" by the way we look at a certain idea.

Again, the theoretical stuff is how I train my ear. It's the dewey decimal system for all the crap my ear likes.

They tell me. I'm always trying to learn and understand, so I ask many of those with whom I play or to whom I listen how they get their ideas and turn them into music. In my experience and opinion (which may be wildly different from yours), those who base their approaches primariy on theory improvise in a regimented and repetitive way. They may be all over the fretboard, inside and outside the changes, in blinding displays of speed. But much of their improvisation follows similar melodic and harmonic lines because they've internalized the templates they prefer and follow them.

And for what it's worth, I could probably tell you a lot of the junk that went into a solo. But not necessarily because I was conscious of it in the moment. If I tend to work through a tune in a particular way, and you came up after I played and were like "what were you thinking about when you were playing," I probably wouldn't say "I was just letting it fly, man." I'd probably say something about the sorts of things I do when I work on the tune. But that doesn't really mean I was consciously tracking those things while I was playing.

[pamosmusic]

I met him in the summer of 1964 when he was playing with Willlis Jackson at Club Harlem in Atlantic City. My trio played the Golden Inn in Avalon NJ that summer, but I lived in AC and came home every night after our gig - so I got to hear him a lot. My drummer's father owned the drug store in the President Hotel, so I worked at the lunch counter most days. Pat ate his beakfast there almost every day, and I made & served it. So I got to talk to him a lot, and I picked his brain because he was aleady a rising star and I was a local hack trying to get better (which I still am).

Love this. I worked at a jazz club near the end of his life, where he'd play maybe twice a year. One day this guy (who was a regular and was just the worst) came up and insisted Pat had put him on the comp list. And I was like ... incorrect.

"Well Pat knows me." Looks over my shoulder and points to Pat at the bar. "See he's right there. Go ask him."

So I did.

"Excuse me, Pat. Mr. XXXXXXX says you put him on the list but I don't recall you mentioning him."

Pat looks up. "Mr. Who?"

"Thanks, Pat. Enjoy your dinner."

And I got to go back to my regular and tell him I had a seat in the back for him for $35. He was displeased. I was very much pleased.

[Mick-7]

Let's go one step at a time if you don't mind. Do you have any conscious awareness of any chord you're playing on or the chord that you are moving towards at any point in your playing, performing or practicing whether that's a tune that you know well or a tune that's new to you?

Yes, if it's a tune I'm unfamiliar with and/or that has difficult chord changes, I'd better be conscious of that, I'm liable to mangle it if I play it by ear alone.

"at any point in your playing, performing or practicing"

Admittedly, it's best to forget all about this stuff when you're playing/performing but I would say it's essential to think about it when you're practicing. If you're not aware of what you're playing, how can you troubleshoot and refine it? Sure, you could do it by ear (if you're good at that), but it will be far less efficient.

[rpjazzguitar]

?I’m getting a headache just reading all of this. I couldn’t play a coherent line with all of it churning in my brain. Do you all actually think these thoughts while playing???

For a tune I know as well as I know All of Me, I don't think about anything but sound. No math. When math slips into my head uninvited, the solo is likely to head south.

But, for the forum, I'm trying to reconstruct and explain what I actually do. For this tune, I learned, years ago, to think of it as key of C and then adjust from there when I need a black key. I've always thought of that as a tonal center approach, even though I am outlining the changes with my adjustments.

Somebody else pointed out that, when you move the G up a half step over E7, you're playing E phryg dom. And another post called it a modal approach, so I figured out which modes were created by the white keys in this adjustment approach.

But, thinking like that on the bandstand during a solo? No. Most of the time, even with an unfamiliar tune, it's chord tones and ears.

From another viewpoint. I'm in C, then comes the E7. Would it help me to think E phrygian dominant or A harmonic minor? Maybe if those names immediately conjured up the correct pool of pitches and I knew them so well I could start anywhere on any note. But, in reality, I'm not there.

My approach (compromise?) is to think C major and to think (if I was thinking at all) "now the G could change to G#". That much will sound like outlining the changes.

Without the context provided by the C tonal center, how would a player approach the E7? Think Am? Amajor? E hw dim?

With the Cmajor context, the E7 takes a b9, maybe a #9 and a #5. There's also an 11 which may or may not sound good. I've mentioned before that hexatonics make sense in many situations.

[Bobby Timmons]

For me, I'm fine thinking of theory when I perform as long as I've practiced it to the point to where I can be creative with it and I can play well rhythmically with it. I don't think it disadvantages me.

My 1st instrument was bass. Do you want to play with a bassist who's winging it by ear and not outlining the changes?

[Tal_175]

From another viewpoint. I'm in C, then comes the E7. Would it help me to think E phrygian dominant or A harmonic minor? Maybe if those names immediately conjured up the correct pool of pitches and I knew them so well I could start anywhere on any note. But, in reality, I'm not there.

I'd be surprised if anybody does that. If you have to think about the pitches and intervals to build the E phrygian dominant scale AND be creative with it on the band stand as the chord is approaching, that's never gonna work. You're probably not suggesting that but I'm under the impression that some people actually believe that's mental process of improvisation with scales.

For example if we are talking about dominants, the process is more like (at least for me) you have to first come up with a harmonic organization for dominants. It could be Pat Martino's minorization, or Bebop arpeggio family, or Barry Harris approach or your own personal approach based chord tones etc. Then you decide on another approach, say, for minor ii V. You can use tritone dominant or perhaps Phrygian dominant or altered scale, diminished scale etc etc. As you encounter more types of dominants, like backdoor dominants, or secondary dominants, you can try the approaches you worked on and see how they sound.

What I'm trying to say is that, I need to become conversant with a harmonic approach before I can use it. Just knowing what collection of notes I could use, even if I could figure it out on the fly wouldn't be that useful. I'd just be noodling.

Becoming conversant with a harmonic approach involves getting good at accessing that approach on the fretboard in a way that I can hear and play phrases fluently and connect the phrases to other chords. That's the actual work that unlocks creativity. I can't do much with just knowing the right notes.

[Bobby Timmons]

^ Exactly

If you have to think about the pitches and intervals to build the E phrygian dominant scale AND be creative with it on the band stand as the chord is approaching, that's never gonna work. You're probably not suggesting that but I'm under the impression that some people actually believe that's the mental process of improvisation with scales.

[rpjazzguitar]

I

For example if we are talking about dominants, the process is more like (at least for me) you have to first come up with a harmonic organization for dominants. It could be Pat Martino's minorization, or Bebop arpeggio family.

I'm interested in learning more about this.

What is a bebop arpeggio family?

I'm afraid to ask my bigger question, what exactly is harmonic organization for dominants? I know what Martino minorization is, or so I think, but you sort of end up in the same place. So, it's Am not D7, but how are you going to play over the whole progression?

[Mick-7]

For a tune I know as well as I know All of Me, I don't think about anything but sound. No math. When math slips into my head uninvited, the solo is likely to head south.

But, for the forum, I'm trying to reconstruct and explain what I actually do. For this tune, I learned, years ago, to think of it as key of C and then adjust from there when I need a black key. I've always thought of that as a tonal center approach, even though I am outlining the changes with my adjustments.

Somebody else pointed out that, when you move the G up a half step over E7, you're playing E phryg dom. And another post called it a modal approach, so I figured out which modes were created by the white keys in this adjustment approach.

But, thinking like that on the bandstand during a solo? No. Most of the time, even with an unfamiliar tune, it's chord tones and ears.

From another viewpoint. I'm in C, then comes the E7. Would it help me to think E phrygian dominant or A harmonic minor? Maybe if those names immediately conjured up the correct pool of pitches and I knew them so well I could start anywhere on any note. But, in reality, I'm not there.

My approach (compromise?) is to think C major and to think (if I was thinking at all) "now the G could change to G#". That much will sound like outlining the changes.

Without the context provided by the C tonal center, how would a player approach the E7? Think Am? Amajor? E hw dim?

With the Cmajor context, the E7 takes a b9, maybe a #9 and a #5. There's also an 11 which may or may not sound good. I've mentioned before that hexatonics make sense in many situations.

Your key/tonal centered approach will work fine if you know where the main chord tones (that define a chord) are on the fret-board: 3rd/7th + alt. tone if it's altered. For example, the G#/D defines the E7 chord, C#/G defines the A7, etc. And this is good to know for comping purposes anyway - what/where the chord tones are and how they are connected - so you can achieve two aims at once.

I do tend to think more in scale terms with altered chords, e. g., diminished for 7b9, whole tone for 7#5, etc., just find this easier than thinking of all the related altered tones. The end goal of course is to internalize the chord sounds so you don't have to trip on this stuff anymore.