2 theory ideas that yield very musical results

[Jimmy Smith]

2 theory concepts that I've come across that have helped me immensely that are 100% theory but really result in big improvements in musicality are:

1. Put rhythms to a group of notes, scale/arp/tonality whatever. Don't need to think too hard about micro managing each note, simply think of rhythms you want and assign them to your chosen tonality. Rhythm is one of the most important aspects of music. The problem with playing a pitched instrument is you have to play logical note choices too. Simply pick a tonality and assign rhythms. Of course make an effort to make informed note choices but have rhythm be the most important focus. You can even break it down to as simple as only focusing on 8th notes, 8th note triplets and 16th notes.

2. Sequence stuff. It's so simple. Easy way to sound intelligent. Play a simple motif and sequence it and then develop it. Your lines needn't be Charlie Parker quality. Simply sequence simple motifs and it already sounds very musical.

[grahambop]

I’ve got some video lessons by saxophonist Jerry Bergonzi where he covers exactly these ideas. What I like is that these concepts are really very light on theory, they are just a simple idea that you can develop to amazing lengths. Bergonzi manages to get huge mileage out of them in the videos.

As it happens I saw him this week, he is doing a UK tour (with Jason Rebello on piano). Both were on top form, it was a fantastic gig (I saw them in Hastings). Incredible that Bergonzi is 74 now, he looks in good shape (he made a joke about being ‘free from eating ravioli’ so maybe he’s been dieting!).

I spoke to Jerry afterwards and said how much I like his lessons, especially the way he takes these simple concepts and expands them into so many possibilities. He said ‘Thanks, I’m just a simple guy, I can only understand simple stuff!’

This was about 5 minutes after he had been playing at Coltrane-style velocity in 13:8 or something!

[Jimmy Smith]

Nice

[rintincop]

Improv strategies.

[whiskey02]

Thanks Johnny,
Is very much the same thing (I think) stated differently as Dizzy's answer to ..how to improvise?..."think of a rhythmic figure, then apply notes to it". The strongest point being that the rhythm is at the top of importance list.

We have SO MUCH info available to us in these days of internet about every great players top 10 favorite devises they use, we think we have to absorb and apply all of them to our playing. Doing so we miss the fact that our favorite musicians tend to have a fairly small "bag of tools" that they apply to their playing that makes them sound like "them". Most successful careers were accomplished by players who did not study "bitonality within negative harmony in a zero gravity space" but rather by just picking a handful of concepts/approaches that appeal to them and they completely master those devices into everything they play and by combining 3 or 4 of them in such a unique way that they sound like someone with their own "voice". You don't have to know "everything", you have to know what is going to be your method.
Name one musician who sounds like they mix all the concepts and devises utilized Bird, Coltrane, Cannonball, Bill Evans, Sonny Rollins, Wes, Gary Burton, Monk and Larry Coryell. You can't but you could easily take everyone of those guys and give 3 examples of 2 bars of music that define their unique approach of "what they do" that makes each one of them sound like who they are.

[John A.]

2 theory concepts that I've come across that have helped me immensely that are 100% theory but really result in big improvements in musicality are:

1. Put rhythms to a group of notes, scale/arp/tonality whatever. Don't need to think too hard about micro managing each note, simply think of rhythms you want and assign them to your chosen tonality. Rhythm is one of the most important aspects of music. The problem with playing a pitched instrument is you have to play logical note choices too. Simply pick a tonality and assign rhythms. Of course make an effort to make informed note choices but have rhythm be the most important focus. You can even break it down to as simple as only focusing on 8th notes, 8th note triplets and 16th notes.

2. Sequence stuff. It's so simple. Easy way to sound intelligent. Play a simple motif and sequence it and then develop it. Your lines needn't be Charlie Parker quality. Simply sequence simple motifs and it already sounds very musical.

I don't see those as music theory concepts. I see them more as practical tips for musicianship and improvisation. Conceivably, if those tips came to you consequent to your studying some aspect of music theory, then it might be reasonable to say something along the lines of "I studied [some aspect of theory], and here's how I apply it practically." But the practical application is not the the theory. Now let's skip all the vituperation, strawmen, red herrings, question begging, and goalpost shifting and go straight to the part where people get banned.

[itsmyname]

the notes don't matter :

[Jimmy Smith]

^ That clip bothers me because I don't like it when people use broadly false statements. 'The notes don't matter' is a false statement. What are you gonna do, only play the low A on a piano but put good rhythms to it and have it be good? No. The notes do matter, but rhythm can't be overlooked is a more accurate statement.

I don't see those as music theory concepts. I see them more as practical tips for musicianship and improvisation. Conceivably, if those tips came to you consequent to your studying some aspect of music theory, then it might be reasonable to say something along the lines of "I studied [some aspect of theory], and here's how I apply it practically." But the practical application is not the the theory. Now let's skip all the vituperation, strawmen, red herrings, question begging, and goalpost shifting and go straight to the part where people get banned.

Lol. Yeah ok agreed, but it's still helpful for me to reverse engineer the music by what theory ideas will work to end up with good music. In addition to ear of course.

[Jimmy Smith]

Thanks Johnny,
Is very much the same thing (I think) stated differently as Dizzy's answer to ..how to improvise?..."think of a rhythmic figure, then apply notes to it". The strongest point being that the rhythm is at the top of importance list.

We have SO MUCH info available to us in these days of internet about every great players top 10 favorite devises they use, we think we have to absorb and apply all of them to our playing. Doing so we miss the fact that our favorite musicians tend to have a fairly small "bag of tools" that they apply to their playing that makes them sound like "them". Most successful careers were accomplished by players who did not study "bitonality within negative harmony in a zero gravity space" but rather by just picking a handful of concepts/approaches that appeal to them and they completely master those devices into everything they play and by combining 3 or 4 of them in such a unique way that they sound like someone with their own "voice". You don't have to know "everything", you have to know what is going to be your method.
Name one musician who sounds like they mix all the concepts and devises utilized Bird, Coltrane, Cannonball, Bill Evans, Sonny Rollins, Wes, Gary Burton, Monk and Larry Coryell. You can't but you could easily take everyone of those guys and give 3 examples of 2 bars of music that define their unique approach of "what they do" that makes each one of them sound like who they are.

Yes, I think this sums it up.

[Christian Miller]

That thumbnail is a bit cringe. The notes certainly did matter to Monk. They might sound unconventional, but they were very carefully chosen. Nothing accidental about his music…

That said, i do generally like Open Studios videos. They are usually right about everything and should be listened to because they are top level pro jazz musicians who can also teach. Thumbnails are thumbnails.

[AllanAllen]

Monk is so strange, his playing sounds like someone who’s never sat at a piano before and I can’t get enough of it.

[Jimmy Smith]

He's somewhat sloppy and weird but he was pretty advanced harmonically. Not something that many people are capable of.

[dasein]

The corollary to this idea is that, in order to focus on the rhythm, realistically you need to have your voice-leading (or how lines move through the changes) down pretty cold. It's very hard to focus on multiple ideas at once. Making voice-leading almost automatic frees up your attention to focus on the rhythm.

He's somewhat sloppy and weird but he was pretty advanced harmonically. Not something that many people are capable of.

I have a suggestion. Next time you listen to Monk, assume that everything he's doing is fully intentional and carefully controlled. That what some might perceive as sloppiness might actually be very, very precise rhythmic placement, to go along with a very deep and personal sense of harmony.

[Jimmy Smith]

The corollary to this idea is that, in order to focus on the rhythm, realistically you need to have your voice-leading (or how lines move through the changes) down pretty cold. It's very hard to focus on multiple ideas at once. Making voice-leading almost automatic frees up your attention to focus on the rhythm.

Absolutely. That was part of my thought, although I may not have articulated it. You gotta just run stuff in practice to get the voice leading and rhythms and notes all ingrained. Then that frees you up.

I have a suggestion. Next time you listen to Monk, assume that everything he's doing is fully intentional and carefully controlled. That what some might perceive as sloppiness might actually be very, very precise rhythmic placement, to go along with a very deep and personal sense of harmony.

I'm not misinformed about Monk. Been listening to and playing his music (on piano) for almost 20 years. I was just addressing what AA said since there is some general criticism about Monk that goes around, and how I get what he means but it isn't accurate to say something like Monk sounds like he had never sat at a piano before since not that many people can make up their own harmonic concept of that magnitude.

[Christian Miller]

I don’t hear any sloppiness in Monk, it all seems very precisely executed to me. He composed a lot too - some pieces are like zero improvisation in the piano. And those whole tone runs and things - very on point. He had an unconventional technique but it worked for what he was doing.

he had some very unusual time things going on that are very him; almost naive or childish sounding but he does those things a lot; clearly they aren’t the result of randomness but rather how he heard it and an important aspect of his style.

There are some great jazz musicians who are often a bit sloppy - Miles is an obvious example… But not Monk, at least not to my ears.

[Christian Miller]

Monk is so strange, his playing sounds like someone who’s never sat at a piano before and I can’t get enough of it.

I think he may be my favourite jazz musician. I kind of wish more music was like that; sophisticated yet childish. It’s amazing.

[Reg]

When I was a kid... that's how we were taught to practice.

Take licks, lines or rhythmic figures and run them through cycles.

By Cycles I mean , rhythmically, melodically, harmonically etc..

Like take a part of a head or melody and cycle it through different chords. Change the harmony with organization and keep the melody pattern the same, adjust the notes to fit the new harmony for each step of the cycle.

Or change the target Notes... by transposing the lick up or down by intervals etc...

I mean this is all standard practice material for when your young, part of the Getting your technical skills together etc... same approach with melodic, harmonic and rhythmic applications.

The more you do the better hands on understandings of theory you become.

Another point... some people want to develop... Their sound. You know, like when you hear music... you recognize who's playing.

[bako]

Monk's rhythmic placement was both highly personal and precise.
So much so, that when others interpret his music and especially when someone plays a literal transcription, they all fail to capture this aspect.

[Danil]

I think he may be my favourite jazz musician. I kind of wish more music was like that; sophisticated yet childish. It’s amazing.

I hear Monk's music as if it was composed and played with a very different attitude - making a sound which goes straight to the heart solely for the sake of it and pure unalloyed joy of performing those sounds afterwards.

I imagine he spent a great deal of effort to get those accents and syncopation to have such an impact on a listener (not on each and every one admittedly) and calling him sloppy is very unfair (it easy to sound sloppy as everyone else, try to be as "sloppy" as Monk, it is a really silly proposition).
Probably people project their expectations of what should the music be while forgetting he lived his own thing. Those who get it will find his music staying forever fresh.

I wish more jazz would be like this too -- devoid of snobbery real or perceived. His bandmates shared the spirit and see how he would stop playing and you still hear it going (it reminds me of Victor's Wooten character in a novel -- a drummer whose groove was so strong he could make a solo out of silence).

[AllanAllen]

7 minutes in, you’ll hear what I mean.

https://youtu.be/gHKnvwoGg0Y

[Jimmy Smith]

I don’t hear any sloppiness in Monk, it all seems very precisely executed to me.

calling him sloppy is very unfair

Again, I've been listening to and playing Monk's music on piano for almost 20 years and he is one of my favorites as well. I was simply discussing an idea which wasn't brought up by me but which does have some merit. 2 general areas of his playing that could be considered 'sloppy', again for the sake of discussion, not really criticism: he would jab at the keys and hit wrong notes at times. This would usually be on solos, while his head arrangements were usually pretty flawlessly executed. And he would have a bit of a pounding attack at times. Now these things don't really bother me because I think they are part of and even add to his sound. The only 1 thing that is a drawback to me about his playing is that he tended to not solo with the rhythm of his lines locked into the tempo with an 8th note pulse like in bebop and a lot of jazz. That's the only 1 thing that I wish he had done better. That isn't to say that he didn't use good rhythms in his solos, he would come up with all kinds of interesting rhythms and little run and riff ideas.

I think you 2 already outlined his main assets and I agree and it's also why he's one of my favorites.

I hear Monk's music as if it was composed and played with a very different attitude - making a sound which goes straight to the heart solely for the sake of it and pure unalloyed joy of performing those sounds afterwards.

those accents and syncopation to have such an impact on a listener.

His bandmates shared the spirit and see how he would stop playing and you still hear it going.

He composed a lot too - some pieces are like zero improvisation in the piano. And those whole tone runs and things - very on point. He had an unconventional technique but it worked for what he was doing.

he had some very unusual time things going on that are very him;

[Jimmy Smith]

7 minutes in, you’ll hear what I mean.

https://youtu.be/gHKnvwoGg0Y

Exactly, he's clearly hitting wrong/random notes at times, but it is very enjoyable to listen to and a good solo lol.

[Christian Miller]

Exactly, he's clearly hitting wrong/random notes at times, but it is very enjoyable to listen to and a good solo lol.

Maybe my ears are completely screwed but I don’t hear any particularly strange notes. There is a searching quality in this solo I would say…

what is a wrong note? Well random note is better way of putting it I think, so I’ll go with that, meaning a note divorced from audiation or intention. I totally think that this has its place in improvisation, and can actually be more advanced than playing only what you hear. It’s a good way for an advanced improviser to try something new. Of course even where pitch intention isn’t there you should still have rhythmic intention but that’s another one. Im not ruling out chance in Monks music but most of it sounds … deliberate to me, for want of a better word.

The jury’s out I think… Ascribing intention to a musician alive is hard enough and one long gone is harder, but Monk repeated enough of his eccentric choices to make me think he was a much more careful and considered player than a random one. Or put another way, someone who exercised choice mindfully.

i also think you would be hard pressed to sound like that if did make a lot of random choices. It would sound much more boring and grey I think.

Its a bit like when someone produces meticulously scored avant garde jazz and people still call it free lol. Confusing aesthetic with process is all too easy even with living musicians.

[Jimmy Smith]

I agree. It follows with his melody idea, he continues building the shape of his solo with it, and it sounds good. I still think pounding away and hitting minor 2nds and random stuff can't 100% be ruled out as somewhat of a limitation or slight sloppy playing or what have you.