-
Some perhaps-connected reactions from an unschooled and technically-limited amateur:
First thing I thought of when I saw the thread topic was, "Monk." Because, despite my having heard improvisatory passages in his own recordings, Monk's compositions always struck me as very deliberate, considered, and, well, composed. And I also accepted the fact that other musicians were capable of using Monk compositions as jumping-off places for their own interpretations and extensions (which is what improvisations are, executed in real time). Nevertheless, there is something optimal about Monk as played by Monk. (And his readings of standards are always revelatory. Something interesting going on there--though not, I suspect improvisatory.)
Next, the matter of improvisation itself and its relationship to the composition that provides the basis or armature. Improv is also a kind of interpretation--exactly, I think, the same process by which an actor speaks Shakespeare's lines and shapes a soliloquy or exchange. That's why "armature" is an apt metaphor for the composition or text that is the starting point of a performance. Then there are the theme-and-variations format, and the contrafact, which imposes a new melody on an existing harmonic structure.
I've posted before on the experience of watching a teacher get students "off the page." At the beginning, it's mostly about overcoming timidity and finding something--even one or two notes or a syncopation--that fits into the tune's structure. It's a long way from there to streams of eighth notes and what my wife calls "noodling," but there's clearly a through-line. And a point at which the original can get so transformed as to vanish in that stream. Or the transformation can be a transfiguration like Coleman Hawkins' "Body and Soul" or Django's "I'll See You in My Dreams."
But now it's time to get to a weekly jam, where I will probably sing some songs in ways not quite like I've sung them before, to the occasional confusion of those trying to accompany me. Fortunately, I don't have the chops to get too far afield.
-
09-14-2025 01:18 PM
-
Christian, I thought this comment (underlined) re: theory by padraig was interesting:
"I play the standards and other popular songs but I stick to arrangements and read it off the page. No improvisation involved and no theory involved either!"
Do you suppose someone could be a very good player (performer, not improviser) without knowing any theory? I would think that one needs at least an elementary theoretical understanding of the craft one practices.
-
Yes I’ve met and played with several.
Originally Posted by Mick-7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I was thinking more of classical guitarists, I can see how one could shun theory if performing older jazz styles. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Oh from my experience, loads of classical musicians don’t have a clue about how the music they play was put together. Or any particular interest in that side of things. Originally Posted by Mick-7
I mean technically if they've gone through the system they will probably have done Bach Chorale harmony etc at music college, but they don't see it as remotely relevant to their professional lives, and it's shelved in the same dusty part of their brains as quadratic equations. They learn the dots and get heavily coached on technique and interpretation.
And then you get some who are super knowledgeable, almost like academic musicologists who also play really well, and deal with music in a highly analytical way. It really depends. Usually keyboard players who are in repetiteur/accompaniment work rather than your concert piano types IME. And organists, who are built different.
Guitarists I think tend to be more improvisational/composition focussed than the general of run of things. The guitar doesn't have same depth of meaty mainstream c18/19 repertoire as the piano or the bowed strings, so there's a little more space for it perhaps. Also guitarists often start off playing rock and pop as well even if they end up playing classical, so there's a link to constructing music. Not that that necessarily requires theory of itself.
Again, there's a separation between practical knowledge like reading music that sometimes gets classified as theory (usually by guitar players) and actual theory that you might study in harmony class, analysis and so on. And then things like realising continuo from figured bass which is necessary for early plucked strings, not that all classical players do that.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkLast edited by Christian Miller; 09-14-2025 at 06:18 PM.
-
On - in the UK you do have to do an exam called ‘Grade 5 music theory’ to get access to the higher instrumental grades. But it’s not super high level, and mostly based around understanding how notation works iirc.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
you are completely free to like and enjoy anything you want. You are not, however, free to use a genre name for anything you want. Jazz has always included improvisation, to a greater or lesser extent. Maybe you only want to hear written out music, and that's fine. But to disparage improvisation or treat it like it's some kind of inferior performance is mistaken. Originally Posted by padraig
If you want to just play pre-written arrangements exclusively, that's fine, but don't call it jazz and don't call yourself a jazz musician.
-
Listening to Wes' various solos on RM I'd have to say you're crazy. If Wes thought like you, we'd never have one of the greatest jazz solos of all time. Originally Posted by brent.h
Maybe you should try to transcribe or copy it like I did, eons ago. And I never heard the "Indiana St." version before, which is very much different than his most famous one and his bootleg live one where he uses tremolo.
He even makes the song itself sound more interesting. Wes never played any tune as written. That's why Wes was a JAZZ genius. If Wes has recorded a tune, I will go out of my way to listen to his version, and 100% of the time, it will be hipper than the sheet music.
This thread reminds me why I post so rarely here.Last edited by sgcim; 09-22-2025 at 08:01 PM.
-
I think this concept is too academic. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
The thing is, I’ve got 3 hours of gig to fill. So I’m soloing if I have something to say or not.
-
One of my favorite renditions - by a couple of titans. Originally Posted by brent.h
AKA
george benson and mccoy tyner round midnight live - Google Search
-
We interpret songs in our own way, as best we can. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't - probably the latter more often than not. Making "improve on the original" your goal is crazy making. It's a creative process, not a music tournament. Originally Posted by brent.h
-
Do I think some tunes don't stand up too well to improvisation and are best left alone? Sometimes, kinda? There are tunes that strike more as through-composed works than repeating forms that lend themselves to jazz-style exposition. Alfie and Lush Life come to mind (Round Midnight does not; I think it's a great blowing tune), but there are versions that force me to abandon that thought (e.g., Trane's of Lush Life). Really, I think when I have this thought it probably just means _I_ can't do anything worthwhile on it (yet). I may never get there, but having gotten there on some tunes I thought I'd never crack I figure it's worth it to keep trying. I suspect many others have the same thought process (including people who are way beyond my level as an improvisor). Or put another way, it's a journey, not a destination.
To the broader question of the value of improvisation, I think it's safe to say that most of the people who play jazz think improvisation is largely the point of the endeavor. There are non-musician audience-members who enjoy it, and it's not just for self gratification. If you call yourself a jazz musician or a well informed jazz listener and you're dismissive of improvisation, you're probably mislabelling yourself.
If you're maybe a relative beginner (as a player or listener), and you find yourself struggling to understand why that guy is playing all those notes, but you really like that other guy who plays more simply and closer to the song as written, it could be that's just your taste, or it could be that you need more time to grok the guy who plays a lot of notes. I'd say don't be dismissive (unless being dismissive is your schtick, which is how some people strike me). That guy isn't playing all those notes just to piss you off. He's doing it because that happens to be how his imagination and aesthetic work.Last edited by John A.; 09-23-2025 at 11:57 AM.
-
Calm down there. You put an opinion out there. Others critiqued the opinion and gave their own. If you can't stand the heat, maybe the kitchen isn't your place. Originally Posted by brent.h
You have mainly intermediate and advanced players on here, and everyone is trying to be an "advancing" player. So discussion is often intense. Nobody was giving you sh*t. They were just giving you their reaction.
Give a listen, and you will definitely learn something useful.
-
just fyi. *nobody* was allowed to improvise on this tune. not even coltrane. monk wouldn't have it. he was no stranger to the concept of leaving a tune well alone. still sounds like jazz to me.
-
But if they weren' playing with him, he had no control over what they did. Jazz in its origins was a rebellion against convention. Sometimes jazz has had to rebel against its own icons. Bebop offended Louis Armstrong. Other shifts in the music alienated other iconic figures. That's just the way the music is. Originally Posted by djg
-
Yeah gotta say I’m becoming a bit of Monk purist. His tunes have a lot to them and I’m not really a fan of treating them like any old Tin Pan Alley standards with respect to all the greats who did exactly that - I find myself coming back to the source.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Hey, you asked us if we thought you were crazy. Lawson and I just answered your question. Maybe you should end your posts a different way if you're Originally Posted by brent.h
gonna get so upset about someone answering your closing question..
-
Hey look - the herd’s ambling by. Did you hear those snorts and bellows? Sounds like a foot has been stepped on, or a butt has been poked. No biggie, they do that all the time. Nothing to see here.
Originally Posted by brent.h 
Why tf are you giving me sh*t?
I'm saying I - me, right here - have nothing further to add and was wondering if anyone felt the same way.
I wasn't bloody advocating for staying tf away from improvising. If you have something to say, well, bloody good on you and carry tf on.
In fact, I even posted Bernstein's version of RN here. He had something to add, and I'm all for it.
I'm just a beginner player and hobbyist in this music. I'm not a professional jazz musician like Wes. I won't think like him. He won't think like me.
You've played this music for years, so you have more experience and skill than me. Why tf are you punching down? I'm not even at your level.
..
If you find my take on this matter crazy, why couldn't you just move tf on and leave be? What, am I doing some kind of harm to fellow musicians here when I say I have nothing further to add?
-
Here's Bill Evans improvising on RM
OMG! Here he is again!
Here's Bad Benson and McCoy Tyner doing it! Someone tell them to stop!
Here's Miles Davis and John Coltrane doing it OMG, they're even doing their own arr. of it! Make it stop, make it stop!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys9wiGNDCvA
OMG, that John Coltrane guy is using scales! Doesn't he know that that's not creative? Why can't he just play the melody?
Everything I know is wrong!!!!!!
-
Damn jazz police are never around when you need 'em!
-
Here's Miles playing RM again, and they don't even play the melody! It;s even longer than the ballad version and it's way up tempo.
-
I called them on that last one I posted. Wayne would be in a lot of trouble if he were still alive...I'm talkin' Jimmy Kimmel trouble! Originally Posted by Mick-7
-
One of my favorites, Michel Petrucciani, giving it a whirl.
-
Monk version is better ;-) Originally Posted by sgcim
It's not really a fair comparison though. I'm sure those guys would agree.
I sort of half jest - I have to say there are days when I think Monk may be my favourite jazz musician, but that doesn't literally mean I don't like any others haha, or feel that people shouldn't blow on those smoothed out versions of those tunes, or feel their playing is anything other than amazing and all the rest of it. It's more that when I hear them doing their thing on Round Midnight I think 'ah yes, time to listen to some more Monk.'
Trane with Monk might be my favourite Trane. (Although Charlie Rouse is one of my favourite horn players now. Utterly distinctive.)
But no discussion would be complete without this Ethan Iverson rant. I tend to agree with much of what he says.
Variants on a Theme of Thelonious Monk (including guest post by Eric Lewis) | DO THE M@TH
I almost choked on my cornflakes when he accused Barry Harris and Tommy Flanagan of cocktail piano on a Monk tune. Thing is - I know what he means. Despite sharing Nica's house with Monk, I'm not sure if Barry was ever that drawn to Monk's way of playing piano and hearing music. He did say he heard Monk play like Bud Powell once ... which seemed to have impressed him. Barry was very much about Bird & Bud, of course. (But Barry clearly highly respected Monk and I remember him praising his pianism.)
Ethan's central point is that most listeners - even many professional jazz musicians - don't really understand Monk. They see his music as messing around, or deliberately subverting expectation for the sake of it. They imagine those strange chords are the product of improvised whimsy.
This is not the case - he meant everything he played and wrote and it forms a very coherent musical language. The reason it sounds odd at first is because it is so personal.
These presuppositions mean that many versions of his tunes seem to iron out those very deliberate quirks in favour of more generalised jazz common practice - sometimes wholesale changing notes and chords (Miles Davis is prime suspect #1 here). They become nice jazz tunes which is testament to the strength of their melodies and chords. But the originals have a lot more to them as compositions.
Compare the Adam Rogers version of Let's Cool One (which is a Monk blowing tune)...
...to the original.
Adam is great of course, one of my favourite guitarists, but he really is just playing the melody here.
Monk's original has that wonderful dissonant contrary motion thing going on for example. Pay attention to the way Monk phrases the melody in particular - no-one else does this. For example, they all push the last note of that ascending phrase because it's the standard jazz thing to do. Monk also comps using the melody arrangement or a simplified comping version of the same. Which harks back to the New Orleans way of doing things with Griffin spiralling over the top like Johnny Dodds on an old Hot Fives side. Actually Griffin sounds a little flummoxed by it almost haha.
Another way of squaring the circle. It's.... cool.
And the more I get into it, the more I realise that he very much approached things as a composer, even when improvising. Peter Bernstein opened my eyes to that - he's hugely influenced by Monk chordally. Pete doesn't play the exact same notes as Monk does always, but his versions are very rooted in a deep understanding of his music. They sound right to me. Here's Pete's version of Let's Cool One for example:
The phrasing is quite different, but the use of the guitar open strings and so on to create these harmonies just feels right.Last edited by Christian Miller; 09-24-2025 at 07:48 AM.
-
I suppose it's a different relationship to playing Stella by Starlight for instance because it comes from within jazz. The original version of Stella has many interesting arrangement details and counter melodies that no-one plays in jazz. The chords are all subbed out.
But Stella as it was presented in the Uninvited is a sort of post-romantic soundtrack thing. It's not jazz.
Whereas Monk is obviously counted as a jazz musician. So the relationship is kind of different.
Jazz has always had specifically jazz composers since the early days. Their music has often been highly worked out and specific. An obvious example is Ellington. As for that matter, Jelly Roll Morton. There's a need to attentive to the details in this music.
OTOH people who get serious about GASB standards repertoire do look to the original recordings and song sheets even if they don't play those things in their own interpretation.
Reply With Quote
New LEDs Day
Today, 07:28 PM in Other Styles / Instruments