Improvising or preparing?

Lawrence Lupkin · Post by **Lawrence Lupkin** » 26 Mar 2003 8:26 am

Thanks Larry. I agree with you that there is much more to it than stringing together licks. As I said, I'm working with scales and general musciality in a lesson setting. Keep in mind that what may seem stale to an experienced player might spark creativity in a novice. It's nice to have some understanding of those who came before.

Jeff Lampert · Post by **Jeff Lampert** » 26 Mar 2003 9:37 am

Larry,
Thanks for the reference to the jazz ideas. The link to the jazz site is below. Regards .. Jeff

------------------
Jeff's Jazz

chas smith · Post by **chas smith** » 26 Mar 2003 10:59 am

Mozart and Mingus were fluid enough at improvising to be able to create full-fledged compositions by tapping into this notion.

JS Bach evidently was a notable (monster) improviser. There was a letter, written by a person, who was in attendance at a harpsichord shop in Leipzig where Bach had come to try out a pedal harpsichord. The description was that Old Master Bach just sat down and started improvising, both hands, while "kicking" pedals that left everyone in the room stunned.

So here's a guy who has to crank out a Cantata for Sunday's Mass and it's Monday night. So maybe he does a little improv to get a phrase ot two and then uses his composition skills to turn it into a Cantata.

On the one hand, there's stringing 'licks' together to create a solo;

I remember a discussion from one of the teachers at Berklee about how John Coltrane was stringing together licks for his solos with a skill that transcended them being licks. Which would reinforce the argument that it's not what you play, but how you play it that determines its musicality.

chas smith · Post by **chas smith** » 26 Mar 2003 12:19 pm

Could you please describe some of the concepts you learned from Bill Evans that you applied on C6? Not just philosophically how he played, but actual concepts of harmony, scales, improvisation, composition, that sort of thing. And most importantly, please describe how you technically applied these things on C6.

Jeff, Dirk, David,--The easiest answer is, that I didn't. Clusters, chord fragments and upper-structure stuff doesn't translate to C6 very easily. What does translate is the motion of chord fragments and/or structures over harmony. The simplest example being the diad scales on E9 "walking thru" chord changes. On C6, since cluster chords aren't readily available and the style of music I'm playing, '30s and '40s "Americana" has a lot of chords to work with, I find that after landing on the main chord, maybe I'll move it up a half step and play a few diads then, once in a while, play a few more down a half step below before going back and reinforcing it again before moving on to the next one. The analysis, in retrospect, would be upper and lower auxillary chords, but the fact of the matter is I don't think of analysis or scales and rarely, theory, when I'm playing. I really only care what it sounds like and how well it flows. By moving thru the frets you can create the illusion of moving clusters.

I think C6 ends up being more of a horn section than a piano. On the piano, I could play 10+ note chords or I could grab a 10th chord or a cluster with the left hand and while it was ringing thru, I could play a phrase of stuff with the right hand and left hand. I can't do the same kinds of things with a bar and 4 picks. I also find that it was much easier to solo on piano than on steel guitar. The piano keyboard is a repetative pattern every 12 notes, you know what the first 12 do, you know what the next 12 do and so on, the closest thing to that on the steel guitar is the ACEG patterns in the top 8 strings on C6. When I'm fumbling through a solo on C6 I'm not thinking scales, I'm thinking shapes.

What Bill Evans was doing with chord fragments isn't all that different from what Bach was doing by extending a chord over a line. The fragments don't clearly define the chord, they allude to it and at the same time allude to other things it could be. In my own compositions and what I usually get called to play on in the film score world, is the neutral stuff.

Neutral, in that it doesn't clearly define where you are. From a compositional perspective, once I have defined where we are, that eliminates all of the other possible places we could be, it limits the possibilities. Although at some point, I think, there has to be a resting place otherwise we are just wandering around aimlessly and by the same token, if it's "textural music" there has to be some tonal markers in all of the texture, to ground it.

I hope that was some of the answer you were looking for. I got to hear Bill Evans play a few times at The Jazz Workshop and Paul's Mall, in Boston in '69 and '70. I sat there and held my breath. I did the same thing when I heard Jerry Byrd play.

Tom Stolaski · Post by **Tom Stolaski** » 26 Mar 2003 3:12 pm

"If a musician improvises when he is performing, he becomes, during those moments, a composer - the rest of the time, he is an interpreter of a musical design originated by a composer"
Frank Zappa

Gene Jones · Post by **Gene Jones** » 26 Mar 2003 4:27 pm

...and sometimes when one is improvising he succeeds in creating something innovative and refreshing.....but at other times he fails miserably and just plays a random array of notes that means nothing except to just get through the interlude!.... www.genejones.com

Larry Bell · Post by **Larry Bell** » 26 Mar 2003 4:42 pm

Wow, Gene
You've heard me play

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
2003 Fessenden S/D-12 8x8, 2000 Fessenden S-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S-12 6x6, 1971 Dobro, Standel and Peavey Amps[This message was edited by Larry Bell on 26 March 2003 at 04:43 PM.]

Clinton Kirby · Post by **Clinton Kirby** » 27 Mar 2003 7:08 pm

Some really interesting responses. I find that it definitely helps to have a pool of possible choices if you don't have something already memorized. If for some reason that falls through onstage, I just take the bar to the position of the chord that's being played at the moment and slide up to the notes, or just pick one and really mean it.

On lap steel in C6 tuning, my safety valve has always been to remember that you can't really go wrong by playing between positions a whole step down or a step and half up from the position of the chord that's being played at any given moment(if the chords are changing too fast, you can always just stay in the home key position and not sound terrible). Of course, that's the way to play a solo or backup if you either just lose your place in a tune, or if you're sitting in and have never played that particular tune before.

I much prefer to have composed parts, but when you're in a band that does almost 100 tunes--mostly covers, you're unlikely to want to take the time to compose a unique solo for each one of them. Even if you did, you probably wouldn't remember them all.

A lot of the teachers I've had (on six-string guitar) have pointed out that music is simply a language. The bigger "vocabulary" (i.e., scales and patterns) you have, and the more "idioms" (i.e., melodies, quotes, and patterns) you're familiar with, the more you can put together original and/or meaningful "sentences" and "paragraphs" (i.e., solos and/or compositions).

Also, I think there is very little actual "improvisation"--creating lengthy, connected, complex, fluid lines that a particular player has never played before in any music. Perhaps the most brilliant, practiced, innately gifted among us are capable of this on a really good night--a Pat Metheny or a Charlie Parker, say. But even they had to relentlessly rehearse and add to their musical vocabulary, often to the exclusion of other things. Mere mortals can still sound good, though, combining predetermined, memorized licks and patterns with the occasional foray into the unknown or semi-known.

OK, that was a little long...Sorry to ramble.

------------------

Larry Bell · Post by **Larry Bell** » 28 Mar 2003 6:09 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Also, I think there is very little actual "improvisation"--creating lengthy, connected, complex, fluid lines that a particular player has never played before in any music.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Clinton, I take it you've never heard Buddy Emmons live.

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
2003 Fessenden S/D-12 8x8, 2000 Fessenden S-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S-12 6x6, 1971 Dobro, Standel and Peavey Amps

Clinton Kirby · Post by **Clinton Kirby** » 28 Mar 2003 7:30 am

I've heard Buddy Emmons live, but I've never seen him live. I recently had the good fortune to see both Burke Carroll and Dave Easley live (with Luther Wright and The Wrongs and 3 Now 4 respectively). I asked them for the "secret" to their masterful playing after seeing them.

Burke was very gracious and of course said there was no "secret". I clarified my question and asked where all his patterns came from. He said he got a lot of them from listening to records, making them up on his own, and a few from tablature. He then showed me a few licks that I noticed he used fairly often throughout the night.

I asked Dave how he learned to play like he does and whether or not he could suggest a good method book or course. He was very gracious also and disabused me of the notion that there is some "secret" to it when he said that there's no substitute for learning the chords, scales, and arpeggios.

The remarks of these two greats coupled with my own reading and searching have led me to believe that improvisation is not what a lot of people define it as. The dictionary defintion of "improvise" is "to invent, compose, or perform with little or no preparation." The second definition is "to play or sing (music) extemporaneously, especially by inventing variations on a melody or creating new melodies in accordance with a set progression of chords."

I think the catch is that "improvisation" can involve "little" or "no" preparation. Clearly improvisation with a complete lack of preparation will fit the definition, but in the real world of playing live for the good people, one would probably not sound very good. Yet there is a general perception that jazz musicians "x, y and z" can magically pull beautiful fluid lines that are completely new to them and everyone else out of nowhere. Chances are, though, the lines weren't pulled out of nowhere, they were pulled out of the countless hours of practice and running scales and copying records, etc.

I would agree that an advanced improviser can rearrange the patterns that he or she plays on the fly so that a new sequence of patterns is created on the spot, but the new sequence will still be created out of patterns the person has already played.

Again, I think it's just like conversation--one can't use words or phrases one has never even heard of or read before. However, one can group together words and phrases that one has heard and used before to create a new phrase or sentence.

I think successful, melodic, complex, impressive "improvisation" in the vein of a Buddy Emmons/Dave Easley/Pat Metheny/Charlie Parker comes from lots and lots and hours and hours of preparation, and therefore does not fit a strict definition of "improvisation." Maybe this type of improvisation should be called "resequencing" or "reordering" to acknowledge the years and the volume of study it takes to be able to play like those guys.

Or maybe I'm completely full of it. In a way, I hope I am. I would love to be corrected and have my understanding of the "improvisation" phenomenon corrected by some of you guys out there who really know what you're talking about. I'd love to know more about it.

Larry Bell · Post by **Larry Bell** » 28 Mar 2003 11:52 am

Burke Carroll and Dave Easley will both do very nicely. I admire both immensely. Wonderful musicians in the truest sense of the word.

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
2003 Fessenden S/D-12 8x8, 2000 Fessenden S-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S-12 6x6, 1971 Dobro, Standel and Peavey Amps

chas smith · Post by **chas smith** » 28 Mar 2003 12:07 pm

I would agree that an advanced improviser can rearrange the patterns that he or she plays on the fly so that a new sequence of patterns is created on the spot, but the new sequence will still be created out of patterns the person has already played.

And that's how you create continuity in the phrase, if you listen carefully to a great soloist, a lot of the time the phrase is a string of simple shapes. I work with a guitar player who has/does his version of "Harmolodics" (see Ornette Coleman) where he uses a shape or a series of shapes that transposes up down and across the fretboard and since he's intimate with what's there, the shape will incorporate a note or notes that fit or collide with the harmony. The continuity is not in the notes, it's in the shapes.

Again, I think it's just like conversation--one can't use words or phrases one has never even heard of or read before. However, one can group together words and phrases that one has heard and used before to create a new phrase or sentence.

Yup. Consider this, all of the 12 notes have already been played over and over and over again and all of the variations have already been played by a lot of other players over and over and over again. There is not an infinite number of combinations and variations even though it makes us feel good to think of limitless possibilities, so now what are you going to do? Are you going to get bogged down knowing that it's unlikely that you'll play the innovative phrase that's never been heard, or the chord progression that leads to enlightenment? Or do you simply learn to play to be as musical as you possibly can. Every one of my heroes is playing the same 12-note-based phrases as the other ones and yet I can usually tell which individual is playing and therein is the key, I think. Working on getting your own vocabulary.

Larry Bell · Post by **Larry Bell** » 28 Mar 2003 12:38 pm

You hit the nail on the head.
If it's not musical (whatever that may mean to you), what's the point in it being fresh?

There's probably a good reason why few people have ever arranged notes in that way.

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
2003 Fessenden S/D-12 8x8, 2000 Fessenden S-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S-12 6x6, 1971 Dobro, Standel and Peavey Amps

Tom Stolaski · Post by **Tom Stolaski** » 29 Mar 2003 5:48 am

In the old days(when I did'nt have a day job)I would listen to music ALL DAY LONG. When I got to the gig, I seemed to have a lot more ideas in my data base to choose from. Practice is very important. What you listen to is also very important when it comes to improvisation.

Jeff Lampert · Post by **Jeff Lampert** » 29 Mar 2003 8:21 am

Charlie Parker is often considered the greatest improviser of all time. There are people who academically study the art of improvising and have scrutinized Charlie Parker endlessly, transcribing his records from studios and live performances, often comparing solos played over the same tune. They have observed how he will, in his "improvising" play virtually the same solos over the same tune recorded months apart. At least in the case of the greatest improviser of all time, a huge amount of the work was done in advance. Neddless to say, none of this in any way lessens the magnitude of his abilities and accomplishments. Nor does it at all change the fact that he was improvising, for all the reasons that have been posted on this thread.

chas smith · Post by **chas smith** » 29 Mar 2003 10:38 am

At least in the case of the greatest improviser of all time, a huge amount of the work was done in advance.

These guys don't pop out of the womb and start blowing solos. If you get a "gift" and you don't develop it, it doesn't happen. The top classical players practise 8 hours a day, just like it was a job, because it is. Isaac Stern was quoted as saying, "If I miss 2 days, I notice it, if I miss 3 days, the audience notices". Coltrane struggled for years looking for his "voice". Every gifted player that I know of spends most of their time practising. When you play, most likely, you're going to play what you know and what you know is what you've practised.

Bob Hayes · Post by **Bob Hayes** » 31 Mar 2003 8:42 am

Every Thing that I do is "Improvised" 'cause I suffer from "CRS"
GV

Jeff A. Smith · Post by **Jeff A. Smith** » 8 Apr 2003 9:31 pm

scrutinized Charlie Parker endlessly, transcribing his records from studios and live performances, often comparing solos played over the same tune. They have observed how he will, in his "improvising" play virtually the same solos over the same tune recorded months apart.

Or, to hear how he developed things on the same day around core ideas, there are outtake collections that have different versions of one song from takes on a single session.

Chas, you mentioned "Harmolidics" earlier. Is it possible to give a nutshell definition of what Coleman's system is?

Thanks,

Jeff S.[This message was edited by Jeff A. Smith on 08 April 2003 at 10:33 PM.]

John Lacey · Post by **John Lacey** » 9 Apr 2003 7:12 am

I think it's easy to get bogged down with that "it's all been played before" syndrome. The remedy is, it hasn't been played in YOUR style that way before.