What is your thought process when you're soloing over changes?

[Reg]

Not everyone goes or has gone to practice rooms... really.

General suggestion for players, at some point it's not a bad idea to start thinking about what other players are thinking. When you do, your able to begin reacting and raising the level of the performance.

Part of your thinking process should be, what is the soloist and rest of band doing. Do you recognize or can you hear what's going on. An example that's easy to recognize or hear is simple volume. Right, generally the level comes down at the beginning of a soloist or at the start of the form, not always but that's the concept. The point is your aware of volume levels, it's a technical skill that you use during performance. Because you're either are aware of it, or you've worked on the technical skill with practice and thinking about it. It now can become a performance skill.

I know, obvious... but that's why I used Volume. Maybe another example, but now moving up the technical skills level, Harmony, or changes, which was where the thread started. So generally there are the basic or vanilla beginning changes, from there you have many options with soloing or backing up soloist.

An example... your backing someone up... you hear them imply the #11 on a dominant chord.

Without thinking, you either do nothing or you play the 7th chord with a #11. But with thinking and having worked on the technical skill aspect of backing soloist up, you know most don't really just want you to just play chord with #11, they want you to be aware of what harmonic organization that #11 in the context can imply.... So rather than react with a parrot type of reaction, you add chords and chord patterns that imply and support that #11 in context.

You can reverse the situation... When you have technical skills on your instrument worked out, they can become Performance Skills, technical performance skills. Generally that's where the thinking process comes into play.

I guess if your not from a jazz performance background, maybe performed more in the rehearsed tradition this thought process doesn't come into play... but it's something to think about.

[rpjazzguitar]

Reg's post induced me to think about this issue from a different direction.

When I'm the soloist, what do I need from the other players? Caveat: I have no idea if more advanced players think this way or not.

First thing is volume. I don't have massive chops, so I can't build intensity by going to double time at moderate or fast tempos. But, I want solos to build. So, one thing that's important to me, in some situations, is for the comping to get quiet at the start of my solo. Then, I can begin quiet and/or sparse and build from there.

As the solo progresses, I don't know what I'm going to play. I don't know what harmony it's going to imply. I just know that I start with some kernel of an idea and I'm going to try to develop it. I need the other players to let me do that my way. I'm happiest when the groove is strong but relaxed. It's very important to me that the bass and drums are locked tight together and the kb comping is propulsive without being too busy.

Maybe my ears aren't developed enough, but I rarely think, "oh, I'm playing a #11 and the piano isn't". Or, "that damn comper is too far outside". I absolutely do notice when the rhythms within my solo line are reflected in the drums. I want the intensity of the comping to follow the intensity of the solo. I do notice when the piano is playing rhythms that conflict with where I'm trying to go.

Mostly, if I'm clear enough in my solo line, the other musicians know what to do. The only exception is that I like things to quiet down at the beginning of a solo more than most players I've played with. That can take the other players by surprise. They might be right that I'm going too quiet (and that the audience's attention will wander), but that's what I hear in my head. So, that gets worked out over time.

When I'm comping, I'm trying resolve conflicting goals. Being adequately propulsive without being too busy. Adding harmonic content without pushing the soloist out of shape. Being sufficiently forceful without being too loud or overbearing. Following the soloist's intensity accurately. Staying in the background without disappearing.

I wish I had the ears to be able to identify the soloist's harmonic choices and find chord patterns that are complementary but, in practice, I probably hear conflict-or-not and respond to conflict by being careful about adding tensions to the chords. OTOH, in thousands of hours of playing, I can't recall a soloist saying anything like "didn't you realize that I was playing X and you played Y in your comping?". Maybe they're biting their tongues? Possible, but I've played a lot with one of my teachers who never held back on pointing out, in strong terms, any weakness. I do recall Warren Nunes once telling me to play less busy; "you're making me nervous", he said.

Oh. I just thought of one. A situation that occurred in a lesson with Steve Erquiaga was that the chord in the chart was C7. Steve played a Gb7 arp. But, I'd played a Gb7 instead of the C7. Steve: "you didn't help me out there". Good lesson.

He wanted to play the extensions and, for that to sound good, he needed me to play the C7. He played a Gb right on the first beat of the measure. I played a Gb7 at the same instant. My point is that we each made our choice before there was any chance to hear the other guy. Should one of us have waited? Or pushed the chord (or arp) change to the last 8th of the previous bar? Perhaps I'd have figure it out by the next chorus, but there's no guarantee he'd have done the same thing. Maybe the lesson is that the comper needs to be very cautious about changing the harmony -- because the soloist wants predictability.

So, when you hear the soloist play an alteration, do you put it in your comping? Answer, apparently, is: sometimes. I think what often works, for vanilla approaches to standards, is embellishing the transitions between chords with quick chord patterns, but leaving the meat of the harmony more intact.

[pauln]

It has been my experience and observation of others that no matter which particular approach, conception, or motivation, the primary test (without fooling yourself) is if you play better in rehearsal with others than practicing alone, and if you perform better with others in front of an audience than you play in rehearsal. I think as long as those relationships hold, you are doing the right things, and doing them right.

[Christian Miller]

Reg's post induced me to think about this issue from a different direction.

When I'm the soloist, what do I need from the other players? Caveat: I have no idea if more advanced players think this way or not.

First thing is volume. I don't have massive chops, so I can't build intensity by going to double time at moderate or fast tempos. But, I want solos to build. So, one thing that's important to me, in some situations, is for the comping to get quiet at the start of my solo. Then, I can begin quiet and/or sparse and build from there.

As the solo progresses, I don't know what I'm going to play. I don't know what harmony it's going to imply. I just know that I start with some kernel of an idea and I'm going to try to develop it. I need the other players to let me do that my way. I'm happiest when the groove is strong but relaxed. It's very important to me that the bass and drums are locked tight together and the kb comping is propulsive without being too busy.

Maybe my ears aren't developed enough, but I rarely think, "oh, I'm playing a #11 and the piano isn't". Or, "that damn comper is too far outside". I absolutely do notice when the rhythms within my solo line are reflected in the drums. I want the intensity of the comping to follow the intensity of the solo. I do notice when the piano is playing rhythms that conflict with where I'm trying to go.

Mostly, if I'm clear enough in my solo line, the other musicians know what to do. The only exception is that I like things to quiet down at the beginning of a solo more than most players I've played with. That can take the other players by surprise. They might be right that I'm going too quiet (and that the audience's attention will wander), but that's what I hear in my head. So, that gets worked out over time.

When I'm comping, I'm trying resolve conflicting goals. Being adequately propulsive without being too busy. Adding harmonic content without pushing the soloist out of shape. Being sufficiently forceful without being too loud or overbearing. Following the soloist's intensity accurately. Staying in the background without disappearing.

I wish I had the ears to be able to identify the soloist's harmonic choices and find chord patterns that are complementary but, in practice, I probably hear conflict-or-not and respond to conflict by being careful about adding tensions to the chords. OTOH, in thousands of hours of playing, I can't recall a soloist saying anything like "didn't you realize that I was playing X and you played Y in your comping?". Maybe they're biting their tongues? Possible, but I've played a lot with one of my teachers who never held back on pointing out, in strong terms, any weakness. I do recall Warren Nunes once telling me to play less busy; "you're making me nervous", he said.

Oh. I just thought of one. A situation that occurred in a lesson with Steve Erquiaga was that the chord in the chart was C7. Steve played a Gb7 arp. But, I'd played a Gb7 instead of the C7. Steve: "you didn't help me out there". Good lesson.

He wanted to play the extensions and, for that to sound good, he needed me to play the C7. He played a Gb right on the first beat of the measure. I played a Gb7 at the same instant. My point is that we each made our choice before there was any chance to hear the other guy. Should one of us have waited? Or pushed the chord (or arp) change to the last 8th of the previous bar? Perhaps I'd have figure it out by the next chorus, but there's no guarantee he'd have done the same thing. Maybe the lesson is that the comper needs to be very cautious about changing the harmony -- because the soloist wants predictability.

So, when you hear the soloist play an alteration, do you put it in your comping? Answer, apparently, is: sometimes. I think what often works, for vanilla approaches to standards, is embellishing the transitions between chords with quick chord patterns, but leaving the meat of the harmony more intact.

Yeah, OK so super interesting post, thanks for sharing. I don't think there's a simple solution to this question, because you'll find exceptions to any simple rule at every turn. But it is an important thing to be considering.

It's a little limited to just think about this in terms of harmony, so Im going to generalise it out, because this relates to all kinds of stuff; rhythm, texture, register and so on.

When you play on your own, you are responsible for the whole music. When you play with someone else you are both responsible for the whole music. So it does require you to listen to the whole music and hear what's going on. How much freedom you have within that really depends on the gig, and who you are playing with (what style etc.)

It's often forgotten (it seems to me) that jazz as a process is a sort of layering of different voices, improvised and composed to a varying degree. The harmony and rhythm makes most sense when viewed that way. The chord is not C7b5b9, it's Gb7 over a C7 shell, and so on.

In early jazz, swing, gypsy jazz and maybe some later styles such as groove fusion, the accompanying rhythm section is more or less composed and solos occur over a more or less steady background (in pure gypsy jazz, the actual grips are specified and not deviated from.) In this case the solo voices are layered over the steady backdrop of stride piano, banjo etc. Louis Armstrong plays an Fmaj7 or a funky cross rhythm but you will NOT hear that in the banjo or piano, which stick to plain chords in 2/2 or 4/4 time. Consequently it is HARD to play that music as a soloist without a rhythm section; in a trio with bass and clarinet, say, you need to fake one somehow as a guitarist.

Bop introduced some more freedom in the rhythms, but harmonically if you listen carefully to what notes the pianist is playing in the left hand, it may not differ much from what the stride pianists did. Again the walking bass and ride cymbal lock the pulse down at least. Bop players will expect that approach.

Starting perhaps with the Bill Evans Trio, the rhythm section starts to lose that 'laying it down' aspect, becomes more improvisational. The bass might elect to play inversions, the guitar/piano will substitute complex chords perhaps with less 'locked in' comping patterns, and the drums may be expressing some sort of polymetric influence. If you add a soloist on top of that, the possibilities become even more complex. So the question is - how much do things need to be pinned down? The answer is, you kind of need to good at hearing the overall music and adapting; with freedom comes responsiblity and responsibility is generally informed by life experience. This is thing that probably most interests those who play modern jazz, certainly me. (OTOH it also makes the music less obviously groove based, so I think people don't like it haha.)

This is one reason why I advocate if not a historical progression, than certainly a progression of increasing freedom for learners; start with strict parameters to improvisation within the ensemble, such as in dance based jazz like gypsy swing or jazz funk, and move towards increasingly interactive/open forms. This principle can be extended to all sorts of areas; harmony, rhythm, form, texture.

So, beginner improvisers - someone who may in fact be an accomplished player technically already - will be fairly oblivious what's going on in the music, so you need to give them something rules based that will sound good (play guide tones/don't double the bass!/play charleston/try this ii-V lick/ etc.) They then go and do transcription, listening etc which is really about getting students used to hearing musical sounds, phrases etc as well as improving their ability to reproduce these sounds on their instrument.

This leads to the intermediate phase. Intermediate improvisers may hear what the soloist is doing and think 'oh I know what that is! I'll do the same thing!' because they have the ability to hear and play what they hear but not yet the experience or wisdom to understand that this is not always the right choice. They hear someone making a sound, and jump on it. They often think that IS interaction. It's fair enough because with transcription that's what they've been doing - hear it, play it, so they do the same thing when they play with real people. This is as true of free jazz as it is of playing standards.

An 'advanced' improviser - someone who may not in fact play better technically or know musical information per se than the intermediate, but has spent more hours on the bandstand - will hear it and make some sort of musical decision based on how they hear the overall music, including what isn't being played.

A few thoughts
- sometimes you play something that complements what the leading voice is doing; play a C7 under the Gb7, for instance.
- sometimes you subvert it; maybe play a Emaj7#5 under the Gb7 or something.
- sometimes you might decide to join the soloist and do the same thing.
- principle of good counterpoint is generally held to be independence and audibility of separate voices. Learning to comp is partly about learning where to contribute something more active and where to simply support the soloist.
- jazz masters break that last rule all the time, but that doesn't mean it's not useful.

Players differ in expectations. Some are more set in their ways than others. Some are more open to different directions.

If I am comping for someone I don't know, I will tend to play pretty vanilla most of the time - root position chords etc. It's generally a good shout for the music itself, until you get to know them a bit better and what they like to do.

Anyway as I say I'm often in charge of chords (I rarely play with piano) and when I do solo over a chordal instrument I greatly value the ability of an accompanist to not cramp my style by playing too much, and to listen to what I do and respond accordingly - I try to model that practice myself. The really important thing is register and texture, and space; harmony as in the analysis of vertical chord structures is kind of textbook stuff, really; jazz reality is about layers, not pedantic hang ups about what agrees with this or that chord symbol (that won't even be expressed necessarily) and it's about hearing the overall sound of the group and the hardest bit, hearing what isn't there that needs to be there (which might be nothing sometimes!)

[Christian Miller]

Another thing Warne Marsh said 'some guitar players actually seem to think I need them to comp for me.'

Seems to me a lot of basic development of a player is to get past the point of needing people to state time and changes under your playing. Once you get there, things get much more musical.

[Reg]

wow... views are really starting to open up. Nice posts, both Rick and Christian. (and Pauln)

Some thoughts that are obvious to me but maybe not to everyone. (doesn't mean their right etc...)

1) pauln... rehearsals are what? To clean up or raise the level of a performance, play what one can't play.... practice getting better and developing an understanding of what one doesn't have? Fun etc...

2)Christian... thoughtful post, thanks. Your statement...

"An 'advanced' improviser - someone who may not in fact play better technically or know musical information per se than the intermediate, but has spent more hours on the bandstand - will hear it and make some sort of musical decision based on how they hear the overall music, including what isn't being played."

Is almost an oxymoron... but also very true. But I think your really talking about an advanced performer... An Advanced improviser can't really be advanced without... advanced technical skills and either advanced ears from understanding what they hear.... from either years of performance or much less time becoming educated of what they hear and time performing etc...

But your point about.... getting past the parrot reaction, I mentioned above is complicated. There is always that performance thing.... one can't or hasn't become aware of musical aspects or what's going on, or what could go on during a performance aspect. It's difficult to perform what one can't play or hear.

I've never heard any performer complain about having too much musical knowledge or too many technical skills.

3) Rick... we're playing Sunday again and your always welcome to sit in...

Reg

[rpjazzguitar]

wow... views are really starting to open up. Nice posts, both Rick and Christian. (and Pauln)

Some thoughts that are obvious to me but maybe not to everyone. (doesn't mean their right etc...)

1) pauln... rehearsals are what? To clean up or raise the level of a performance, play what one can't play.... practice getting better and developing an understanding of what one doesn't have? Fun etc...

2)Christian... thoughtful post, thanks. Your statement...

"An 'advanced' improviser - someone who may not in fact play better technically or know musical information per se than the intermediate, but has spent more hours on the bandstand - will hear it and make some sort of musical decision based on how they hear the overall music, including what isn't being played."

Is almost an oxymoron... but also very true. But I think your really talking about an advanced performer... An Advanced improviser can't really be advanced without... advanced technical skills and either advanced ears from understanding what they hear.... from either years of performance or much less time becoming educated of what they hear and time performing etc...

But your point about.... getting past the parrot reaction, I mentioned above is complicated. There is always that performance thing.... one can't or hasn't become aware of musical aspects or what's going on, or what could go on during a performance aspect. It's difficult to perform what one can't play or hear.

I've never heard any performer complain about having too much musical knowledge or too many technical skills.

3) Rick... we're playing Sunday again and your always welcome to sit in...

Reg

Good discussion. Appreciate the invite! I've got something in the evening already, but I'll try to come by early (and leave a little past 5pm).

[rpjazzguitar]

Perhaps only peripherally related ...

Reg discusses technical and performance skills.

I think of it in a way which may be similar (I'm not sure).

1) Mental and 2) Guitar.

On the Mental side, I have to decide what to play.

On the Guitar side, I have to be able to execute my idea.

So, to me, I'm happy if I thought of something to play, solo or comping, and I executed it in the way I imagined it.

When I hear a really skilled jazz player I'm often awed by the chops (depending on the player) but I'm almost always awed by the ideas.

Jim Hall is a great example of a player with magnificent ideas which didn't require a ton of chops to execute. Chico Pinheiro comes to mind as a player with another set of magnificent ideas (and compositions) and the massive chops required to execute them.

To me, the Mental side contains the magic. And, developing it is elusive. I think the way that some players do it is that they had enough talent to get on the bandstand, in their teens, with older, skilled players. Up close and personal. I think it's the most efficient way to improve.

[Christian Miller]

Perhaps only peripherally related ...

Reg discusses technical and performance skills.

I think of it in a way which may be similar (I'm not sure).

1) Mental and 2) Guitar.

On the Mental side, I have to decide what to play.

On the Guitar side, I have to be able to execute my idea.

So, to me, I'm happy if I thought of something to play, solo or comping, and I executed it in the way I imagined it.

When I hear a really skilled jazz player I'm often awed by the chops (depending on the player) but I'm almost always awed by the ideas.

Jim Hall is a great example of a player with magnificent ideas which didn't require a ton of chops to execute. Chico Pinheiro comes to mind as a player with another set of magnificent ideas (and compositions) and the massive chops required to execute them.

To me, the Mental side contains the magic. And, developing it is elusive. I think the way that some players do it is that they had enough talent to get on the bandstand, in their teens, with older, skilled players. Up close and personal. I think it's the most efficient way to improve.

The Mental side is the bit that I think gets a bit neglected. IMO that takes as much practice as the playing side, more maybe for an experienced player. Far from an optional extra, it’s the foundation on which everything else is built.

Hearing your ideas in full before you play them is a great way to practice - that’s actually a big part of transcription, it trains that muscle (and learners get some licks out of it too) the main problem is that guitar students tend to noodle too much and lose the thread of the thing they are trying to play. Putting down the guitar and just singing with records etc is excellent practice, as is running through music in your head.

Pretty much every time if I can’t play something it’s because I can’t hear it. it follows that while you do need to spend some time on the instrument, some great practice is done away from it.

It also follows that the process of developing as a musician is very much about developing this Mental side. I might be happy that I played something the way I heard it, but next year I might how to hear better, so to speak, and my playing can only ever be as good as the quality of my imagination and hearing…

None of which is to say technique and practice isn’t important too; especially at the early stages when you are learning to play the instrument. The learning at an early stage has to be mechanical to a degree…

But there is a certain ‘mind over matter’ at play. I don’t know about you, but I spend a while listening to fast virtuosic playing I find myself playing more like that. Technique isn’t necessarily a separate area to the mind or the ears. Technical practice is really about turning what you hear into a physical sensation. That might be a scale, arpeggio, melody or a bop line.

While I think there’s value in working on the Mental side on its own, it’s best not to be too Cartesian about this stuff if you know what I mean…

[bako]

The learning at an early stage has to be mechanical to a degree…

Certainly that's the way most of us learned and we don't get a do over.
If we could though, learning music solely through intense listening and
vocalizing for a year or two without an instrument would be a worthy experiment.

[rpjazzguitar]

Another issue which is relevant to the "what you think about" question is musical memory.

Some people can remember things better than others. And, memory is not one thing. There are a large number of different aspects of memory which have been studied and catalogued. The ability to remember music is not one I can recall reading anything about, but I've seen it in action.

One of my teachers could remember a 2 hour show after playing it twice. I saw him do it.

It seems to me that great musical memory would be a big advantage in developing the mental side of playing jazz.

As far as I know, there are no proven techniques for improving basic memory. There may be some techniques (like making associations) which can help solidify memories.

So, this strikes me as one of those fundamental elements of what gets called "talent". You have it, or you don't. Without it, you can still play and improve, but, if you had the option, you'd be better off with the talent.

Warren Nunes told me "when I hear a song on a jukebox in a bar one time, I know that tune for the rest of my life".

[Tal_175]

If we try to break it down, I think these are the elements found in a typical solo:

1- Motivic ideas: Typically short (2 beats to 2 bar long) phrases that are developed with variations or played in call response patterns. This is very subconscious. We've heard motivic development and call/response like in every song, piece, and every solo of any kind.
2- Changes running: Typically in the form of continuous 8th note lines outlining the harmony with leaps and steps.
3- Themes: Typically playing off of the melody of the tune.
4- Pre-worked out lines: Typically licks and quotes. They may become motivic ideas used for inspiration.

These aren't necessarily separate moments in a solo. Some or all can be happening at the same time. These all can also potentially use various harmonic devices superimposed over the background harmony.
Am I missing anything?

[Reg]

yea Tal those are typical and very useful elements of soloing.

I guess I just approach improv differently than many. I basically make a quick analysis of what's going on in each setting. By that I mean... I organize my solos from making conscious choices of what I think I can create in the setting. Who's playing, what is the feel of the tune and what will be entertaining to the audience.

I don't really worry about, like Tal posted... motives, changes, themes... licks etc. All those technical details of composition etc... all the tools of performance. I'm aware of most technical elements and and have good ears, I just want to create with the band... music that feels like a natural creation that can pull the audience in and take them somewhere. We are what we are.

I generally use organization of space or time (Form)... as the only thing I really concentrate on.

I know what skills I have and try to use the skills of the rest of the band performing. I like pushing limits right up to the point of where we could crash and burn, but that never really happens, we just have more fun. Sometime it comes off better than others, but that's the point, it's not a rehearsed or worked out thing.

Of course... I'm talking about Live performance.

[mr. beaumont]

A lot of good stuff here.

My go to "thinking" when improvising is all about breaking a tune up in to larger "sections." I don't want to chase chords...so 4 bars, 8 bars, more...I look for touchstones, places I know I want to land. It's my way of internalizing the tune quickly.

[rpjazzguitar]

A lot of good stuff here.

My go to "thinking" when improvising is all about breaking a tune up in to larger "sections." I don't want to chase chords...so 4 bars, 8 bars, more...I look for touchstones, places I know I want to land. It's my way of internalizing the tune quickly.

Excellent point, which I have heard from some of my teachers.

They talk about the landing points with the implication that it barely matters how you get there. I interpret that to mean, "barely matters harmonically" -- because it absolutely matters how strong a line you're playing melodically (rhythmically strong is also implied by this). A strong enough melodic line can create bitonality for the listener. You just have to return to harmonic-earth before the bitonality makes a transition into cacophony.

An example. I've heard great players play a fast lick and then move the same lick one fret at a time without obvious regard for what's going on harmonically. So, the lick is moved chromatically -- half steps. I suspect they could move the same lick in whole steps (or some other pattern) and it would still work if it landed in the same place. The listener gets the feeling of being suspended in mid air like a trapeze artist and then being caught when the lick reaches the target.

[Reg]

yes... Tonal Targets. I think I use to push this approach... but gave up years ago. Now that Mr B and a few other are bringing the approach up...

Any tune or anytime you play or perform, The really only constraint your stuck with is the space, the time, the Form, the whatever you want to call the physical time your playing fills when you solo or someone else etc...

After you get your skills together, at least your Technical skills to the point that you can play what you want, or in that direction, you'll begin to have the freedom to start thinking about musical organization of that space, (the Form).

The standard or basic starting point is having Tonal Targets and how to use them. Which are physical points within a tune that you or someone else decides are the most important musically moments of the tune or Form that make the tune or the performance of the tune... become what it is... or what you or someone else wants it to be.

Generally these points within the tune are organized by rest or unrest, tension and release, call and answer, movement.... or creating the expectation that more is coming, or that that it's finished.

It's the basic tool for making music feel like it's saying something, telling a story.

The basic tools for creating this feeling... (no specific order)

Harmony
Dynamics
Rhythm
Form
Melody

and even you... your performance skills.

Again once you have whatever technical level of skills you feel is enough...you'll begin to have the freedom to make choices of how you want to musically organize the SPACE...

As Mr B was saying he breaks a tune into larger sections, (as compared to chords). This is the basic concept, but.

You also need to have musical organization as to how or what you make those sections. Generally using one or more, or all of the basic Tools I mentioned above, in the direction of what Tal was bring up in his post.

But take the time to read about musical organization... it's not complicated and has been taught and written about for centuries. I'm a medium pro but I've compose tons of music for all kinds of situations.... You don't need to hear everything or have mental awareness from the Gods of music... You can read about musical organization and actually understand how it works... mechanically, and then use whatever skills you have and your playing will improve dramatically.

Again... you need skill level that can at least play the music. If you need to constantly figure out what and how to play in the moment. That doesn't mean play 16th notes etc... but be able to play your style and skill level, and be aware of what and where your your playing in context.

[joelf]

Nothing. The tune maybe. Definitely the previous solo's last phrase.

If you're thinking you're not improvising. Soloing, yes---improvising, no...

[rpjazzguitar]

Carl Barry told me years ago that Chuck Wayne approached a tune like this.

First, he constructed a chord melody with every melody note harmonized. A chord for every note. That's an interesting exercise to try. To my ear, it makes sense ... that every melody note implies a harmony, usually with more movement than just the melody itself.

Then, he tried to solo over every one of those chords. I don't know exactly how he accomplished that.

This approach seems to attend, primarily, to the flow of the re-harmonized harmony rather than tonal targets. I assume he could do it more than one way.

Apologies to Carl if I have remembered this incorrectly. Carl, for those who are unfamiliar, has been a great NYC based guitarist for, well, more than a half century now.

[PMB]

Carl Barry told me years ago that Chuck Wayne approached a tune like this.

First, he constructed a chord melody with every melody note harmonized. A chord for every note. That's an interesting exercise to try. To my ear, it makes sense ... that every melody note implies a harmony, usually with more movement than just the melody itself.

Then, he tried to solo over every one of those chords. I don't know exactly how he accomplished that.

This approach seems to attend, primarily, to the flow of the re-harmonized harmony rather than tonal targets. I assume he could do it more than one way.

Apologies to Carl if I have remembered this incorrectly. Carl, for those who are unfamiliar, has been a great NYC based guitarist for, well, more than a half century now.

That sounds right to me. I know Kurt Rosenwinkel goes through the same process.

[joelf]

I studied with Carl as a teen, and Chuck in my early 20s. Nothing but love and respect, but not long after I didn't want to go the way of the guitar as an end in itself. That still stands, but bless Chuck and ALL his 'disciples' for their love and dedication...

[rpjazzguitar]

I studied with Carl as a teen, and Chuck in my early 20s. Nothing but love and respect, but not long after I didn't want to go the way of the guitar as an end in itself. That still stands, but bless Chuck and ALL his 'disciples' for their love and dedication...

On Kings Highway?

[joelf]

On Kings Highway?

You are correct, sir. Sid Margolis...

[mr. beaumont]

Carl Barry told me years ago that Chuck Wayne approached a tune like this.

First, he constructed a chord melody with every melody note harmonized. A chord for every note. That's an interesting exercise to try. To my ear, it makes sense ... that every melody note implies a harmony, usually with more movement than just the melody itself.

Then, he tried to solo over every one of those chords. I don't know exactly how he accomplished that.

This approach seems to attend, primarily, to the flow of the re-harmonized harmony rather than tonal targets. I assume he could do it more than one way.

Apologies to Carl if I have remembered this incorrectly. Carl, for those who are unfamiliar, has been a great NYC based guitarist for, well, more than a half century now.

Makes sense to me...ive said for a long time, the goal is to get to the point where you can nail evdry single change in a tune...

And then don't ever do that.

[joelf]

This will refer to solo playing exclusively:

I just picked up a guitar to finally play, after watching umpteen interviews w/various cats.

Had Body & Soul in mind. Just coming off listening to Chris Anderson, so a certain rhythmic looseness and dynamic range was in mind, and I decided too to use only the shell, a suggestion, of the tune until the end. I imagined myself playing a set at Mezzrow, so it was a performance in my head and in real time.

That was my only preparation, and I let it rip for however long, in & out of time and rubato---time for the soloing section, cadenza at the end, as is my usual wont, especially on a ballad.

Then A Smoooth One popped into my head, time to swing lightheartedly. I never plan a set beyond tunes I want to try my wings on, or feel I have something I especially want to say on something that evening. I may start tapping the guitar top or singing---trading or keeping time as I sing.

I feel like this is maybe 90% unplanned, just surrendering to the moment and my instincts. I can't remember the last time I've looked at a set list, though I may sketch one out beforehand. I turn on the dime as the muse suggests. I've already read the room and may shift gears if I don't feel I'm connecting. But I want to do even that less and less---trusting myself and the listeners who've washed ashore to be in this thing too.

BUT---it took MANY years of thought; listening to every kind of player; composer; singer; music---and lots of practice and self-reflection to get to the point where I can do this somewhat reliably. And there are f-ups; bad nights; mediocre ones; ground-lifting ones.

But thinking while performing, especially improvising? Wouldn't think of it...

[joelf]

I think the idea of going over every change more useful early in the learning process. You need to know your way around both the instrument and the material.

But if that approach lingers too long one runs the risk of what Charles MacPherson, talking about how many players missed the real melodic essence of Bird, called 'chasing changes'. I would myself submit that a 'harmony 1st' approach is a major wrong turn jazz has taken in the past ca 60 years. Players copy aspects of what Sonny Rollins and especially Trane did, w/o understanding the discipline and training these guys had. They always made it songful, through sound and the putting ideas---harmonic or whatever---in a melodic funnel.

It's way, WAY harder to distill all that harmonic info---again, once that early HW has been done early on---into melodic (and swinging---also endangered, sadly) soloing...