Theory & Impro Improvising and all that jazz

[Pete Thomas]

Because there is almost always an opportunity to trot it out and make a statement.

It's also one of the easiest scales to play and memorise, in any key.

 

[progger]

And it seems like nearly every culture on earth, regardless of outside contact, has independently invented the pentatonic sound over the millennia. Something about it must be genetically appealing to a plurality of human beings, for whatever reason? That's my unqualified perspective, at least. I'd be interested in hearing an actual evolutionary ethnomusicological take on it.

 

[mizmar]

Something about it must be genetically appealing

I'd be hugely surprised to see a direct, genetic, origin story!
Except that our - all animals - hearing, by definition, is there to analyse the structure of sound so the physiology follows the physics.

 

[Grumps]

Playing over a jam in F minor (Dorian), the notes F-Ab-Bb-C-Eb, and patterns and melodies based on those 5 tones, will just naturally fit.

I was with a brass band that had a mix of experienced players and lesser ones that featured some really, really bad improv when I got on board. I was pretty hard on a lot of them because eventually we were playing for good money and they couldn't come in thinking they were entitled to soloing at performances just because others got to do so. It became a rather touchy issue and the leader would implore upon me to help improve the soloing for the band. I'd encourage them when they hit something good even though it meant they'd play the same lines each and every performance. If it works for an audience, it works for me. Same with the clever quotes from other songs they'd superimpose upon what we were doing. All good, even if repetitive.

Now there was one sax player who was a multi-talented musician who played numerous instruments. Though he plays alto sax at one volume (too loud), his antics make him a crowd favorite; and brass band music is pretty loud to begin with. He's not going to hit any clams however, and he's also a very emotive player. I pointed him out to the others quite frequently. And reminded them that he only plays five notes...

 

[Mix O Lydian]

I predate the Aebersold explosion by a little bit, so the way I learned to play as a kid was by playing along with the radio.

All the points made above are valuable. A couple I want to stress. Apple Music (or Sh*tify or AmInTheZone or ...) have great catalogs, and if you have one of those services it's worthwhile to create a couple short playlists for yourself and put them on on heavy rotation. Listen to them while you go to sleep, when you first wake up, during lunch, while you work, whatever. As turf said, as a kid I couldn't afford to buy more than one record every 2 or 3 weeks, so I would get it home and put it on and over the next little while I would listen to it 100 or more times. This morning, Cannonball's "Them Dirty Blues" was on my list, and I noticed that I still remembered EVERYTHING about that record, the little rhythm section hits, the arrangements and all the solos. (That's a great record BTW, those cats had their stuff together.). I must have played that record a couple thousand times when I was 13 and 14.

Some specific things that might help. I also am WAY more attracted to modal and blues based music, even though I love playing on standards too. One thing I did when learning modes was this - I played the root note of the mode I was working on and then listened to the relationship between that note and EVERY OTHER NOTE IN THE MODE. For example, take F Dorian. I would play F, get it in my mind, think to myself "this is home", if I was near a piano I would play that note and hold down the pedal (Eb or Ab depending on which horn). Then I would play G, hold it out. Try to understand how that note sounds against the F, remembering the sound of F as I played G (or holding the note on the piano). Do the same for the rest of the notes - Ab, Bb, C, D, Eb and finally F again.

Because I was playing in school band and orchestra, and studying clarinet privately, I was inundated with major keys, it was really hard to hear F as the root when all my training was "this is an Eb scale". It took a while, but I persevered. This was valuable ear training.

Another thing I want to stress is what Grumps said. You have to know your horn. When you just sing, along with records or just to yourself, the connection between what you hear in your mind, and what you sing, is direct. With an instrument you have to develop that same kind of connection. This will take some time, so make sure you play ALL your scales. S L O W L Y ... E V E N M O R E S L O W L Y... This goes along with the hearing exercise I described above.

Finally, spend at least half your time improvising. A lot of it will sound like crap. But play stuff, keep at it. As you do this you will develop your own voice. Use little fragments of the technical practice you do and play WITH them, try to play them as part of a song, use them to make a melody. Don't let your practice be compartmentalized into little boxes like "technical", "chord studies", "II-V-I", etc. Try to relate the training exercises to your music making, and maybe adjust what you practice technically as you change what tunes you are working on. (But don't neglect anything - all scales and arpeggios in all keys is a must.)

@Mix O Lydian - this is music, this is art. There are no rules. There ARE styles, common practices, things that sound good and things that don't. But this is your music, so follow your heart. Think about what you are doing, think deeply, try to understand things, listen hard - but follow your path. If it sounds good it is good.

@skeller047 Thank you so much. This is such valuable advice. I have been so preoccupied by this issue over the past few weeks.

 

[Colin the Bear]

Several "sitters in" at a recent gig making the front line a little crowded. The other clarinet player plays lots of fast licks and arpeggios. I'd picked up the alto for Bill Bailey. I know.

The other clarinet played a blinding virtuoso solo. Me for contrast held one note through the whole thing, showing off my circular breathing. Lots of antics and banter from the rest of the band and an enthusiastic round of applause for my completely improvised solo.

For the technically minded, I chose a fifth above tonic.

 

[Wade Cornell]

Much of the previous discusses "note choices". Is this an oxymoron considering that improvisation is defined as composition in the moment? If you're playing the same tune and practicing and making changes to hone for an ultimate performance how is that improvisation? Does improvisation = you didn't write it down and have memorized it?

I think something has been lost here if you think the past Jazz Heroes were doing this or it's a method that will help people hear a line that they can play spontaneously.

There is a big gap here between hearing a musical line in your head that you play as you would sing (real improvisation) and cut and paste playing according to a chart you're reading. If you can't hear what you're playing before it comes out of your horn, how can you be improvising?

When and how is a player encouraged think melodically? Is there a feel, mood or story that the player could communicate?

1. Put down the horn and sing a line. That's music coming from you!
2. Pick up the horn and play what you sang.

Some will have difficulty hearing a line to sing. That means you need to be listening to a lot more music of all sorts and singing along until you develop a sense of melody, rhythm, and harmony. You can study these as basic music theory (NOT the same as theory that's taught for jazz), but that will not become part of you until you internalize and are actively making music.

The second suggestion can be more difficult to implement as it means you are developing the ability to play by ear. However all REAL improvisation is playing by ear.

Lastly, improvisation does not = jazz exclusively. It existed forever. It can be in any genre. It is an individual making up music on the fly. It is especially important in popular music as small bands making up tunes generally don't write out parts. Someone has an idea, plays it, and the other members of the band are expected to hear something that they can play that fits. None of the Beatles music was written prior to being played, and the same is true for most other pop bands.

Becoming a player who can hear a line to play and execute it musically (with feeling, tone, accuracy, rhythm, etc.) is the goal. Making "note choices" isn't part of that reality. You are in the moment playing what you hear, there is no deliberation when you are improvising, you are "in the zone".

 

[Ghr9204]

Does improvisation = you didn't write it down and have memorized it?

On many it is me. As I improve, I make little alterations, but follow the same basic style.

I suppose that because there are written out solos by the greats that one can buy for a particular song or set chord sequence. One may continue rehearsing it, until one day they can play it all the way through, in essence have it committed to memory.

 

[turf3]

Much of the previous discusses "note choices". Is this an oxymoron considering that improvisation is defined as composition in the moment? ...

I think this is a misunderstanding. Just because each melody one plays is improvised doesn't mean the material's never been practiced.

Whether you "choose" a note to play three weeks before and write it down, or you "choose" the note to play 50 milliseconds before, it's still a choice.

 

[skeller047]

Much of the previous discusses "note choices". Is this an oxymoron considering that improvisation is defined as composition in the moment? If you're playing the same tune and practicing and making changes to hone for an ultimate performance how is that improvisation? Does improvisation = you didn't write it down and have memorized it?

I think something has been lost here if you think the past Jazz Heroes were doing this or it's a method that will help people hear a line that they can play spontaneously.

Just because something is a “composition” doesn’t mean the material isn’t familiar to the composer. Even Bach had favorite licks….

The last line above is incorrect. Just listen to any of the many re-issue recordings that include alternate takes. The Cannonball record I referred to previously is one of them, with an alternate for Work Song, among others. In Cannonball’s solo on the alternate, there were two multibar phrases that were the same, though in one case he ended it differently. And a lot of the same licks. Nat’s solo had a whole chorus with the same general outline and rhythmic content. Bobby Timmon’s solo was very similar with the same structure throughout. I remember an Art Blakey record where Lee Morgan played the exact same intro on his solo on the alternate take, and there were clear examples of phrases and licks that were the same in both solos.

Bottom line, those Jazz Heroes of old worked on their improvisation all the time and developed strategies and licks and ideas which they then played night after night, show after show. Is this “real” improvisation? Of course it is. Does it mean they aren’t in the flow, they’re just phoning it in, they’re being lazy? No, it does not. Those guys studied their music and developed their own unique ways of playing it over many many hours, and they were deep into it. We should do the same.

Wade, I’ve listened to some of the music you have posted. You have ideas and concepts that are quite clear, and some are similar from piece to piece. Are you not improvising? Of course you are! But you have a vocabulary, and a thought process, and it’s recognizable from hearing you play.

I think a better way to think about this stuff is to think about having a conversation. You have the words you know, and the ones you use often. When you discuss a topic that you have discussed before, you often say the same kinds of things that you have before. Is this not a free conversation? Of course it is, it’s not a prewritten speech. But you have absolutely examined those ideas before, and maybe used phrases before that are similar or exactly alike to the ones you are saying now. Substitute “Tune” for “Topic”, and the process is the same.

@Mix O Lydian, I hope this conversation helps you. I’ve been playing a long time, longer than you have been alive. Playing seems natural to me. I keep trying to learn new things, and deepen my understanding of music in a multidimensional way. I keep looking for more things that sound good to me, and when I find one it’s like coming upon a gold nugget or a gem in the rough. So beautiful, so exciting! It’s a journey, and even after 68 years on it, I am amazed almost every day.

 

[Colin the Bear]

Sometimes I don't know what I'm going to play till I hear it. If nothing springs to mind, a few rhythmical tonics and we're off.
Playing with sympathetic musicians is a gift. There's inspiration in other players' ideas. Trading fours with a good drummer is always fun and challenging.

A well worn solo can throw up innovations and a change of course with an unexpected tempo.

It's very easy for an experienced player to forget how much experience has influenced their playing.

I have no idea how I do what I do. I do like doing it though.

 

[Wade Cornell]

I think this is a misunderstanding. Just because each melody one plays is improvised doesn't mean the material's never been practiced.

Whether you "choose" a note to play three weeks before and write it down, or you "choose" the note to play 50 milliseconds before, it's still a choice.

I'm going to presume that you've played "in the zone" before. It flows through you. There are no conscious choices. For me that's always the goal. Play as you would sing. My "rants" are 100% about pure improvisation, not playing standards or tunes you have practiced forever. It's being in the moment and making what you play a personal statement rather than formulated or contrived.

 

[wakyct]

I agree with most of what's already been said, but I would be careful about claiming the jazz greats didn't study theory. They may not have been studying chord/scale "theory" in the form it's evolved to today and is commonly taught, but they were definitely working on theory. Read Sonny Rollin's notebook that was published recently, look at Yusuf Lateef's work, John Coltrane, the list goes on.

I just started a 10 week in person course called "Theory of Jazz Improv". It's a dozen of a us in a room with our instruments. I will say from the outset I'm skeptical of how chord/scale theory is presented but I'd like to examine all of the concepts of improvisation with an open mind.

 

[Wade Cornell]

I agree with most of what's already been said, but I would be careful about claiming the jazz greats didn't study theory. They may not have been studying chord/scale "theory" in the form it's evolved to today and is commonly taught, but they were definitely working on theory. Read Sonny Rollin's notebook that was published recently, look at Yusuf Lateef's work, John Coltrane, the list goes on.

I just started a 10 week in person course called "Theory of Jazz Improv". It's a dozen of a us in a room with our instruments. I will say from the outset I'm skeptical of how chord/scale theory is presented but I'd like to examine all of the concepts of improvisation with an open mind.

The educated early jazz players may have studied music theory, which, as you say is general and not the same as what is currently taught for improvisation. It's theory but only relates to how to use notated chords to build a solo. It's my understanding that this came about well after the fact via academic "reverse engineering". There was a demand for teaching students how to improvise... and that was the result. Unfortunately it resembles "paint by the numbers".

It's been my contention that those wishing to Creatively Improvise need to develop the ability to play by ear. This doesn't mean one shouldn't learn to read or study any form of music. Creative Improvisation is about hearing a line to play and being able to execute it in the same way one would sing. This is (for now) outside of what's easily taught.

If you can't hear a line to play, that's a problem. If you can hear what you would like to play and can't execute it that's also a problem. Those deficits won't be fixed by just learning to play finger memory riffs, arpeggios, or a host of other cut and paste lines. However after many hears you may be able to be familiar enough with your instrument to play what you would sing.

Developing a connection to your instrument so that you can play what you hear is the key. One exercise is to hear a line that you then immediately repeat without having to check your fingering, identify the note, the key you're playing in, etc. It's an ears to hands pathway instead of eyes to hands, or translating constructs to understand what you heard. It's also not the same a "ear training", which seems to be another academic type of "translating". It's direct and effective. Play what you hear.

The Other part of this is a matter of ones ability and experience. If you've got a good and broad mental musical library, then you have a lot to draw on. Creativity is however is pretty difficult to teach. Hearing in your head a line to play is not a lot different to playing what you just heard someone else play. The difficulty is in hearing a line that fits, communicates something more than technique, flows, and uses many of the general music theory constructs; melody, harmony, counterpoint, rhythm, etc.

If you go to most "jazz jams" you hear standards with players who may have studied jazz theory. The object in most cases is for the solo(s) to be a showcase for their technical level of playing. It can also (unfortunately) be a competition or "pecking order". How much creativity or musical appeal is there in that? Is there an audience for this or just others who are on the same tangent?

There is a world of music out there and improvisation can fit into much of it, however it's not always about solos, it's all of those other general theory aspects required for backing singers, playing harmonies, rhythmic lines, call and response, etc. Most popular music bands don't have written music. You bring to a group your ability to hear a line and be able to play that on the spot. The same would have been true for most of the jazz that isn't based on "standards" like Kind Of Blue and others. No fake book or continual repeats, they played what they heard in their heads in real time within a very simple structure. That's Creative Improvisation. IMHO most Jazz theory apes this without the spark of creativity. It gives the player something to play. Yet can they hear the notes they are playing before it comes out of their instrument? If you can't how is that you improvising?

A rather nasty quip by Truman Capote about another author's work is also apropos: That's not writing, that's typing.

Just because something is a “composition” doesn’t mean the material isn’t familiar to the composer. Even Bach had favorite licks….

The last line above is incorrect. Just listen to any of the many re-issue recordings that include alternate takes. The Cannonball record I referred to previously is one of them, with an alternate for Work Song, among others. In Cannonball’s solo on the alternate, there were two multibar phrases that were the same, though in one case he ended it differently. And a lot of the same licks. Nat’s solo had a whole chorus with the same general outline and rhythmic content. Bobby Timmon’s solo was very similar with the same structure throughout. I remember an Art Blakey record where Lee Morgan played the exact same intro on his solo on the alternate take, and there were clear examples of phrases and licks that were the same in both solos.

Bottom line, those Jazz Heroes of old worked on their improvisation all the time and developed strategies and licks and ideas which they then played night after night, show after show. Is this “real” improvisation? Of course it is. Does it mean they aren’t in the flow, they’re just phoning it in, they’re being lazy? No, it does not. Those guys studied their music and developed their own unique ways of playing it over many many hours, and they were deep into it. We should do the same.

Wade, I’ve listened to some of the music you have posted. You have ideas and concepts that are quite clear, and some are similar from piece to piece. Are you not improvising? Of course you are! But you have a vocabulary, and a thought process, and it’s recognizable from hearing you play.

I think a better way to think about this stuff is to think about having a conversation. You have the words you know, and the ones you use often. When you discuss a topic that you have discussed before, you often say the same kinds of things that you have before. Is this not a free conversation? Of course it is, it’s not a prewritten speech. But you have absolutely examined those ideas before, and maybe used phrases before that are similar or exactly alike to the ones you are saying now. Substitute “Tune” for “Topic”, and the process is the same.

@Mix O Lydian, I hope this conversation helps you. I’ve been playing a long time, longer than you have been alive. Playing seems natural to me. I keep trying to learn new things, and deepen my understanding of music in a multidimensional way. I keep looking for more things that sound good to me, and when I find one it’s like coming upon a gold nugget or a gem in the rough. So beautiful, so exciting! It’s a journey, and even after 68 years on it, I am amazed almost every day.

I greatly appreciate your post and agree with much of what you're saying. Yes I have musical quirks and phrases... vocabulary if you will. I don't think that's a detriment to me or anyone else. There's lots of jazz groups I've seen multiple times and it's certainly part of any performing group's playing to repeat tracks they may have recorded and play them with or without variations. It's expected! However those learning aren't in that category. My comments have always been about encouraging players to develop their ear and make the horn their voice. I've written this out once again (above).

Maybe my ability to communicate succinctly is lacking? However hopefully some will get the gist of this. Like you I'm old (79) and started with piano lessons at 6 years old (1952) and switched to woodwinds in the mid 1950s. I loved jazz at the time and still love players who are creative. However improvisation is not the sole provenance of jazz and can be, and is a part of many genres. I'd love to see that expand and hear more players develop their creativity. I don't hear that in most academic jazz players. I think that's a problem. Maybe you and others don't?

I'm not really here to debate and instead just want to throw out some ideas. Some seem to feel wounded or negatively challenged by those ideas. That's not a problem for me, and it shouldn't be a problem for them if they are playing and doing what pleases them.

We're old and have seen and heard a lot. We're in "legacy territory". I'm happy to try and inspire some with different information. Sharing information, ideas and choices that could benefit some is the goal.

 

[Mix O Lydian]

-

That's how I feel. When I see stuff like that my mind freezes WT??
I 'get' the concept of a 12BB but when I try and think what to play over the chords I get lost.
When I let my ears direct me it kind of works. Perhaps daily scale and arpeggio practice has helped at a subconscious level?

So an interesting story about the 12BB.
In a lesson early last year, I did a really good improvisation, during my practice session on a song we had been working on (which I now know to be based on the blues scale, which at the time I had no idea about. I decided to write it down to play for my teacher.

We played through the original piece plus my written "reprise". It sounded really good - the teacher looked at me astonished and said "bloody hell! you've written a 12 bar blues". And I said "what's that?" (because at the time I genuinely did not know that the piece I had written was an actual "thing")

Which goes to show that you can just follow your ear, without necessarily knowing the theory behind it.

 

[Mix O Lydian]

There is a big gap here between hearing a musical line in your head that you play as you would sing (real improvisation) and cut and paste playing according to a chart you're reading. If you can't hear what you're playing before it comes out of your horn, how can you be improvising?

When and how is a player encouraged think melodically? Is there a feel, mood or story that the player could communicate?

And therein lies my problem. I hear something in my head that sounds lovely and melodic and conveys the mood of the original song, but I'm being told I should "only" play certain notes, then the vibe is lost because all I am doing is thinking and thinking and thinking about what notes I should be playing.... In a group workshop we were doing Angel Eyes and we each had to take turns - I did my bit, in tune, in time and within my allocated bars, and was told "that was really good, but it isn't what I asked you to play"

1. Put down the horn and sing a line. That's music coming from you!
2. Pick up the horn and play what you sang.

I ABSOLUTELY will!

Some will have difficulty hearing a line to sing. That means you need to be listening to a lot more music of all sorts and singing along until you develop a sense of melody, rhythm, and harmony.

Fortunately I don't feel I have difficulty hearing what I want to play. It is more to do with feeling constrained and then I seize up, because I feel I am not doing it the "right" way according to how it seems to be taught, as per my example above and the 12BB example. I realise that need to trust my intuition more. None of the lessons I have had so far have encouraged this, which is why I am trying to learn on my own.

Becoming a player who can hear a line to play and execute it musically (with feeling, tone, accuracy, rhythm, etc.) is the goal. Making "note choices" isn't part of that reality. You are in the moment playing what you hear, there is no deliberation when you are improvising, you are "in the zone".

That is exactly what I am aiming for!

Thank you so much for taking the time to reply @Wade Cornell. Lots of invaluable advice there.

 

[Pete Thomas]

None of the lessons I have had so far have encouraged this, which is why I am trying to learn on my own.

Well, some of the best players in the world (also me) were self taught.

Well, to be more accurate, I taught myself for two years then went to music college.

 

[Mix O Lydian]

I just want to say thank you to everyone who replied to this thread. It has really helped me.

These comments have given me an idea about the type dialogue I should have with any future teacher/mentor, perhaps next year, once I have worked on my own for a while longer.

For now I will focus on getting my foundations in place, find my voice, develop my confidence, trust my intuition, learning in a way that feels authentic and more organic. I have taken notes from some of the comments and I am going to refresh the way I have been approaching my learning. In particular, @Wade Cornell , @skeller047 , @turf3 @Pete Thomas - some real golden nuggets in all of your very detailed responses. I am very grateful. Thank you so much.

 

[Mix O Lydian]

Well, some of the best players in the world (also me) were self taught.

Well, to be more accurate, I taught myself for two years then went to music college.

Yes I think a period of time doing it on my own, is worthwhile, and then I will go to a teacher/mentor.

Not dissing teachers, but my two experiences with teachers have felt like a bit of a power struggle for me, put me off!

 

[Pete Thomas]

Not dissing teachers, but my two experiences with teachers have felt like a bit of a power struggle for me, put me off!

I can understand. But back when I was learning (jazz saxophone) there was no such things as the chord=mode approach that is so prevalent now. They tended to teach in the same way that the greats (of the 50/s 60s/70s and earlier) learned.