Scot Ranney's LearnJazzPiano.com archive: Improvising a Piano Solo

LearnJazzPiano.com archives: Improvising a Piano Solo
Classical_Count -- 06/09/2005, 23:09:23 -- #14833
I think that the best way to learn the important skill of improvising jazz on a piano or any instrument is to start with imitation and listening to professional solos (ex. Basie, Thelonious Monk). Once you know the rules, you can break them and come up with out of this world solos. Just what are your opinions?
d3dy -- 06/09/2005, 23:29:27 -- #14834
right!!!! Recording is Our textbook....
Dr. Whack -- 06/09/2005, 23:44:10 -- #14836
that's it boss:)
JayBrooks -- 06/10/2005, 02:18:06 -- #14839
Although I agree in principle that imitiation is a helpful skill to learn, I think that in practice, the whole "learn the rules before you break them" philosophy is absolutely devastating to artistic evolution and originality. The fact is, there are so many "rules" as it were, that we can spend an entire lifetime 'learning the rules' before we see fit to move on and do something for ourselves. Perhaps learning the rules means being able to play like Oscar, or Tatum, or Bud, or whoever. But of course, hardly any of us, no matter how much practice, will ever really be able to play the kind of stuff they played the way they played it. So the question is, do we just keep trying to approximate that sound, getting closer and closer but never quite reachin it? Or do we acknolwedge the past masters for what they were -- PAST masters -- and attempt to do something new? I don't recommend that we completely turn our backs on what tradition has to offer either, but to me it's obvious that so many current jazz musicians have become completely fixated on the past (e.g., the whole Wynton Marsalis school), and ironically go against the traditional 'spirit' of jazz as a constantly evolving and vital art form. And I think that's exactly why most jazz today is not evolving or vital. The average combo at a club will just be a bunch of competent imitators playing the same kind of stuff that would be played 50-60 years ago, only not quite as well (or authentically) as the old guys did it. Our world is not the same today as it was then. Thus, our music should not be the same either. I think we should be CONSTANTLY working with new and original ideas at EVERY stage of our development, and not just wait until after we've "learned the rules", for that day will never truly come. Even if that day were to come somehow, if we got there by adopting this kind of 'imitate before you innovate' musical philosophy, it seems we would necessarily lose many of our creative impulses along the way, and would thus no longer even possess the creative vigor to come up new ideas. So please people, for the future of this music, this imitation love fest has got to stop, unless we want jazz to become the museum piece that it seems to be heading towards...
7 -- 06/10/2005, 03:13:08 -- #14842
Other players give you ideas that you would never have come up by yourself. Consequently your bag of tricks expands. Rather than "imitate then innovate" the process is actually "assimilate and create". The audience and other musicians expect certain conventions in most Jazz situations. Yet Jazz always gives plenty of opportunities to manipulate our heritage to arrive at new outlooks. Throwing the baby out with the bath water simply encourages reinvention of the wheel. If civilization and art are not based on recognition of the lineage and continuity involved in the evolutionary process, then what CAN they be based on. Even a cursory glance at the history of any art form reveals that each subsequent "school" is still rooted in the "school" that came before. No matter how revolutionary the concepts may have seemed at the time. Novelty for novelty's sake has no lasting value. Only time will tell how today's musicians will affect the Jazz of tomorrow.
Mike -- 06/10/2005, 06:52:11 -- #14843
Stravinsky once said "Amateurs immatate, Proffesionals steal"
Barry -- 06/10/2005, 07:17:08 -- #14847
Excellent thread. Good points well made - that's this site at it's best. In a way I agree with both Jay and 7. Jay is right that there are people in the jazz world, like Wynton Marsalis and Stanley Crouch who are intent on keeping the music static and shun any new approaches in favour of recreation of past styles. Having said that, 7 makes the point that if we do not study the past then we are re-inventing the wheel and making unneccessary work for ourselves. It is important to know that studying the past does not mean that you are bound by it. It is also important to make the point that studying the past is not a recent phenomenon. Charlie Parker learned to play by transcribing Lester Young and Ben Webster and copying what they played. Miles learned to play by copying Diz and Bird. This didn't stop them from innovating and creating their own voices. The study of the past gives us our basic techniques and vocabulary. If you wanted to write a truly orginal novel, no one would tell you that you had to invent your own language to make it orignal or innovative. You would use the same old words that every other author has used - but it's what you do with them that determines whether your novel is innovative or not. I know I'm not really contradicting anything Jay said as he wasn't advocating that we ignore the past totally, but one thing I would like to comment on was this sentence. "And I think that's exactly why most jazz today is not evolving or vital." I think that there is a general perception in the jazz community that the music has become stagnant and is not going forward. However, I think that there are plenty of great players around who are pushing the music in new directions. When I hear people like E.S.T or Soweto Kinch, I am listening to something that is new and innovative and hasn't been done before. When I hear players like Brad Mehldhau creating their own unique voice and style, I can't agree that jazz isn't evolving. One thing that I am certain of is that we will never have the schismatic changes in style we have had in the past. Ironically enough, I think that part of the reason for that is that people are being too diverse. In the bebop era, everyone wanted to play like Charlie Parker and, once the style was established, pretty much everyone played the same way until Miles came up with something else to do. In fact, your average club combo in those days would certainly have been "a bunch of competent imitators". These days, there are so many different styles that are being played that it is inconceivable that everyone will suddenly convert to one new style. Now don't get me wrong, I am well aware that there is plenty of dull 1950's throwback jazz being played but the point I am making is that, just because everyone isn't converting to one new way of doing things, it doesn't mean that the music isn't evolving; we just have to look a bit harder to see it as the evolutions are smaller in scale. We must also remember that the level of access we have to music now through recordings and internet mean that today's player is taking influences from music that comes from all four corners of the world. When the big stylistic changes took place in the past, the jazz community was small. Innovations were created by a small number of musicians working together and then adopted by everyone else as those players passed through the towns and cities. Everyone adopted their innovations because that was the only new music they had access to. Today we are able to hear music that we may never have heard before on pretty much a daily basis and this availability of new sound has changed the way that all music, not just jazz evolves. I can be as guilty as the next man of being cynical about the current state of jazz, and I think it's a little lazy to say that nothing new or interesting is happening. When I honestly think about it, I know that the music is still evolving and changing and will continue to do so. I would urge every jazz musician not to lapse into being cynical or dismissive about the state of our music because the good and the new is definitely out there. Barry PS Excuse the enormous post but my computer has been in the repair shop for a month so I haven't been around much at all - I guess I'm cramming a months worth of typing into one post! lol
Dr. Whack -- 06/10/2005, 08:02:24 -- #14850
To me, improvising and playing Jazz is playing what is in your head, but there must be something in there to play or this won't happen. Imitating, transcribing, stealing, etc, are some great ways to get some ideas and start the ball rolling. I recently went to a Steve Gadd clinic. He said, "50 Ways To Leave your Lover" was the only thing he ever created, everything else he stole:)
JayBrooks -- 06/10/2005, 08:56:50 -- #14855
Cool thread, indeed, Barry! Again, for the record, I DO believe imitating (transcribing, listening w/ intent to emulate, etc.) is an extremely important tool in our musical development, and that we certainly should not shun the past or completely reinvent the wheel (as Barry acknowledged). However, I was trying to articulate that I feel like we are focusing WAY too much on these things, and not enough venturing off and experimentation. I think like anything else, it's a matter of balance, and to me a lot of us seem to be way out of balance in this respect. 7, you're right in that learning from others can expand our own pallettes and show us things we wouldn't think of on our own. But the problem is, it seems that as the 'common practice' conventions of jazz become more and more defined, limited, and institutionalized, the body of work that most students listen to in search of new ideas becomes smaller and smaller, and eventually a lot of us start copping the same stuff and we end of sounding stale and indistinct as artists (hence the wealth of competent imitator professionals). That's part of the reason I'm such a huge advocate of being exposed to classical (or any other) genres of music, because I think listening to people like Stravinsky or Debussy or Palestrina, etc., will give us constantly varied and refreshing takes on music much more so than say, learning yet another Oscar Peterson blues transcription. Now Barry, you're certainly correct that there are many exceptions to the stagnant unevolving music I'm talking about, and God bless 'em! As to why these guys are exceptions, though, I've got a strong hunch (ok, I'm convinced : ) that it's because in their student days, they took the whole 'learn the rules before you break them' philosophy with a huge grain of salt. I'm sure they all did their share of listening and transcribing and such, but I bet that every step of the way they were also reevaluating the rules, and learning to break them.
Fred Brown -- 06/10/2005, 10:04:36 -- #14856
This old novice wants a "bag of tricks" he has to cart around on a dolly! Neat expression about recording/etc. being our textbook! I never tire of practicing improv around the standards--I get a real lesson in jazz everytime I work w/A Train, Kelly's Blues, Blue Charlie, All Blues--you fill in the blank! For so many of the members, these tunes are pat repertorie, but your input regarding what we have access to graces all of us and inspires creation. W/ref to interpretation of existing songs--2 simple exs: I stand amazed when I see/hear FatsD's I'm Walkin preformed @ Newport or GJones' She Thinks I Still Care pounded out by HConnickJr! BTW, any interest in exhausting a thread on--of all things--Rhythm Changes: Suggestions from fellow members that focus on LH bass lines, Comping Techniques, RH Solo/Improv Ideas. I know there is a ton of stuff already out there, but I bet there are new & exciting ideas still to be shared. I would consider it an honor to be able to play the 32 bar A-A-B-A form exercise w/a sense of genuine confidence & professionalism as a result of your generous input & willingness to further enlighten sincere beginners! Thanks Fred
Styles -- 06/10/2005, 14:00:37 -- #14864
Improvisation is largely as concept driven discipline. Although I've never ripped exact riffs from people, I have endulged in some unadulterated rythm and concept theft. I've stolen, purposefully and subconciously, from Art Tatum Duke Ellington John Coltrane Charlie Parker Bill Evans Makoto Ozone(left hand improvisation) Miles Davis Chick Corea Wynton Kelly Monty Alexander Hiromi Uehara Mozart Beethoven B.B. King Jason Miles Cannonball Adderly David Beniot Debussy Robert Palmer Jimi Hendrix The Dhuks Kirk Franklin I'll rip Garth Brooks if he plays some stuff that I like
Boy Wonder -- 06/14/2005, 21:21:27 -- #15118
Wow Styles, I didn't expect to see Kirk Franklin on your list. That's tight though, you can learn something from anybody.
onimousomnibus -- 06/15/2005, 14:23:24 -- #15153
Good points by all... Listening to players improvise is obviously essential to learning to do it yourself, nobody would disagree that to be good at jazz you have to listen to a lot of music and not exclusivley "jazz"...I am putting this word in quotes because everyone seems to thinks that jazz is the music that is always the most progressive, and I dont think this is the case. I thinks that there is an underlying force behind all music and "jazz" like anything else is just a style. The cultivation of this force is the real progression. Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Ellington, Parker, Davis, Hancock and many others have expanded this force to new places. Maybe the next place new music goes won't be jazz...
onimousomnibus -- 06/15/2005, 14:36:07 -- #15154
this thread actually is good for me to once again argue that Medeski Martin and Wood are a progressive force in music. The are along the lines of Mahvishnu, only less over the top and slightly more funky. (in my opinion, but i do love me some Mahvishnu.) Electronics are obviously going to factor into new music as they do every facet of modern life, and Medeski is the only guy ive seen who makes loud lawnmower noises with his keyboard (at least in a way that sounds good) Another side of progression is taking popular ideas and making them sound good. Charlie Parker and Miles Davis both took ideas from music that was popular at the time. It only makes sense that today when popular music is quite possibly the worst its ever been (if you dont believe me listen to some "pop punk") that the for progressive creative music the pickings will be slim.
trocadero -- 06/17/2005, 09:22:28 -- #15225
I think that what is missing in jazz today is that there insn't many real bands out there. Everyone is sitting at home and practicing, and everybody is playing gigs with everybody. Bands are just projects and never a constallation that plays many years together. The thing about E.S.T. and Brad Mehdlau trio is that they are real bands. You're not sitting in the audience thinking "Well, Brad is the best player and Jorge is ok but I really dont like Larry". You listen to the bands sound. Since pop-music began, popular music is music from bands, not individuals. I think jazz could draw a much biggger croud with that in mind. Pretty off topic, but quite related to the "wannabe-50's-jazzplayer-situation".
sdm -- 06/17/2005, 12:34:22 -- #15230
I have to disagree, trocadero, that bands are what work. Yes, during some of the real creative periods of the music there we known groups like the Davis quintets but most often people "played around" and still managed to stand out. Parker recorded with all kinds of different people as did most of the bop guys. They also gigged or sat in all over the place. For a reason I don't understand (unless it's just sensory overload which I suspect) people listened and talked enough for someone like a Monk to be heard about just from the NY clubs. It just doesn't happen like that now.
Scot -- 06/17/2005, 12:52:08 -- #15233
There are a lot of bands out there, but the reality of the situation is that in today's music business you need to market your name more then your band's name if you want to make it. But there are still bands. Methene, Fleck, Corea, Stern, all the greatest players have some set guys they play with, especially in their home town. But the greatest players also like to stretch it out. That's why Miles changed bands every few years, why Chick always comes up with a new project, etc... The bands are out there, but they are disguised. Find your favorite pianist in your town and find out where they play trio or group stuff on occasion, local joints. Look at who they are playing with. You'll probably notice that most of the time, the local professionals tend to play with the same people. I know I like to play with certain players when I put a trio together. When I worked in east asia in the mid 90's, I played with the same guys for four years. We were very very tight. I almost regret not recording. But the music was too polished. We played together too much. There was no edge, no fingernails on the chalkboard, nothing than perfect musical communication. Sounds nice, and it is for a club situation where you're playing seven nights a week. But for music, it's a curse because it's that much harder to break into new musical territory. Ok, just rambling, but you get the idea.
SolArt -- 06/21/2005, 19:48:44 -- #15395
I think the way to learn how to improvise is to FIRST of all learn various scales & chord construction. This way unless you're a Mozart you'll have some kind of a framework instead of flying blind, fishin' for notes, & so on. THEN learn other's solos, etc. Otherwise you'll never know WHAT it is you're playing, which limits you from seeing the total picture of how the piece was conceived, developed, elaborated, blah-blah. Plus you can't communicate the changes etc with other cats, unless they have super ears. And if one's ears are so super, why heck, one's chances of being someone of note(s!) are much higher.
Copyright � 2005 by Scot Ranney. All rights reserved.
Click Here for more information about performances and clinics. Click Here to sign up for Scot's music announcements.