Do you ever think, "Wait, why am I improvising on this tune? It's already perfect."

**Mark Kleinhaut** · 09-14-2025, 08:51 AM

Improvisation in the one true god! There now, I’ve said it.

**MinToyTot** · 09-14-2025, 10:27 AM

To a listener, lots of improv is ideal! It means that the performer has the opportunity to create sounds which are not only relevant to the accompaniment but also to the time and place in which they are performing. I hate to use a rock example but Hendrix' Star-Spangled Banner did not exactly conform to anyone's chart thereof... But DID conform to what would ultimately be the most pleasing/beneficial to the audience. The same goes for good improv of any kind in any genre.

**Christian Miller** · 09-14-2025, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by pamosmusic

There’s also the saying among writers that “you can’t edit a blank page.”

The skill of just getting words out and dealing with them later is maybe a little underrated? Maybe not.

But the skill of just spitting out some music and reorganizing it and perfecting it later certainly is. We’ve really separated the two things to the point where a composition must be perfectly composed and meticulously edited and heard before written and improvisation must be pure and spontaneous.

I think what didn’t help with that is the fact that music moved away from a shared language of schemata and cliches (such as the Mannheim school) and became more self consciously progressive and important.

So yeah you bet everyone starts editing their work when the symphony is no longer about spitting out 15 minutes of well crafted but generic music for small orchestra and starts being about a epic commentary on the human condition using a vast orchestra and a musical language limited only by the imagination of the composer.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**RLetson** · 09-14-2025, 01:18 PM

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.

**Mick-7** · 09-14-2025, 04:59 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.

**Christian Miller** · 09-14-2025, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Mick-7

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.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Mick-7** · 09-14-2025, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Christian Miller

Yes I’ve met and played with several.

I was thinking more of classical guitarists, I can see how one could shun theory if performing older jazz styles.

**Christian Miller** · 09-14-2025, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by Mick-7

I was thinking more of classical guitarists, I can see how one could shun theory if performing older jazz styles.

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.

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 Tapatalk

**Christian Miller** · 09-14-2025, 06:24 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

**lawson-stone** · 09-15-2025, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by padraig

I honestly don't know why jazz musicians feel the need to improvise on everything, never understood it.

When you read a book do you read the first page and then make up the rest of the story yourself?

The way I understand music is a timeline. Baroque, classical, romantic, impressionist composers in that chronological order were the popular music of their time. The early 20th century composers writing for the stage and screen came next and that was the popular music of our time. Call it the great American songbook, the standards, whatever you like, it's just essentially the pop songs of the day. The big bands played them because that's what audiences wanted to hear.

And then what happened? A sort of sub genre developed, musicians using the harmonies from popular songs and using them as vehicles for improvisation. It's almost like something they would do in the rehearsal room for their own amusement but somehow it made it onto the main stage.

I've got no interest in it. I want to hear the tune, not every member of the band blowing a bunch of scales whilst the tune is hardly recognisable.

I don't play that way, "jazz" is not part of my repertoire. 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! I don't want to be having to think when I sit down to play. I'm a performer not a composer. It's supposed to be fun, not hard work. Just read what was written and play it as intended.

I don't listen to jazz either. I listen to big bands, Joe Loss Orchestra, Glen Miller, Syd Lawrence orchestra. The good tunes are all intact, the arrangements are creative, improvisation is kept to a minimum save a few tasteful embellishments and horn breaks.
Some piano players I listen to embrace improvisation a little more, Beegie Adair for example. That's about the extent I can cope with without wondering where we are and where the tune has gone.

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.

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.

**sgcim** · 09-22-2025, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by brent.h

I spent the past 4 days learning Round Midnight. I like the tune as a listener, but loved it even more when I 'looked under the hood'.

I mean the tune's perfect! The song is such a strong statement in and of itself; I don't think I have anything further to add. Nothing that I improvise will sound as coherent or melodious. I think this is one tune that I would not call at a jam session (aside from it being quite slow).

Does anyone else have such thoughts or am I crazy?

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.
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.

**brent.h** · 09-22-2025, 08:40 PM

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?

**AllanAllen** · 09-22-2025, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by Christian Miller

I like it when Monk plays the song over and over. I like it when he comps for the horn player by playing the song. Genius. Why does no-one else do that?

I’ll be a bit of a troll but I was listening to some modern jazz being piped into the PA between sets with a bandmate who is a great early jazz stylist (but also a Sco fan). It was anything really good, not Jarrett or anything, but impressive, advanced playing. After a while he looks at me and says ‘why are they playing so many notes? Why are they doing any of this? It’s asinine.’

He wasn’t wrong. A lot of improvisation IS asinine including a lot of mine. We have to centre music, not our "awesome jazz skills". That’s what great musicians do in their own various ways…

After you’ve got your stuff together there is a strong argument in favour in only improvising if you have something that’s better than the tune to play. You can of course, embellish the tune.

“Speak only if your words are better than silence" sort of deal.

Obviously not my vibe but I can see its value haha. Or maybe I'm growing up? Who knows.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think this concept is too academic.

The thing is, I’ve got 3 hours of gig to fill. So I’m soloing if I have something to say or not.

**AKA** · 09-22-2025, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by brent.h

I spent the past 4 days learning Round Midnight. I like the tune as a listener, but loved it even more when I 'looked under the hood'.

I mean the tune's perfect! The song is such a strong statement in and of itself; I don't think I have anything further to add. Nothing that I improvise will sound as coherent or melodious. I think this is one tune that I would not call at a jam session (aside from it being quite slow).

Does anyone else have such thoughts or am I crazy?

One of my favorite renditions - by a couple of titans.

AKA
george benson and mccoy tyner round midnight live - Google Search

**Mick-7** · 09-22-2025, 11:13 PM

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?

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.

**John A.** · 09-23-2025, 02:11 AM

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.

**lawson-stone** · 09-23-2025, 10:30 AM

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?

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.

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.

**djg** · 09-23-2025, 11:24 AM

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.

**lawson-stone** · 09-23-2025, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by djg

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.

**Christian Miller** · 09-23-2025, 03:07 PM

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

**sgcim** · 09-23-2025, 03:58 PM

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?

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
gonna get so upset about someone answering your closing question..

**AKA** · 09-23-2025, 05:33 PM

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?