This thread originally began with the following post by Bruce Lindfield. It has generated a lot of discussion and some heat as well. At one point Bruce decided to delete the thread because he felt that others were criticizing him and that he was not being allowed to respond.

I think that the content of the thread is too good to lose, and others agree. I have revived the thread and will add more material as of the date of revival.

Wow Bruce, this is a good stuff! I subscribe to that thread... thanks

Your "tutor" is insane!
Chet's playing wasn't limited by anything...Anyone, in my opinion who says Chets playing was limited by anything, especially theory or harmony is Wacko!
To give you an idea of how little Chet knew about harmony and theory....Someone was taping the band one night, so I have this on tape. We were working this jazz club here in Denver called " El Chapultapec "
Chet calls "But Not For Me"
I say "Chet, you want to start on the one chord or the two chord?" and Chet says "Paul, Paul, I don't know chords"
Now, that's really something when you can't tell someone what chord you like to start on, especially in terms of numbers! As it turned out I suggested we start on the b5 chord which I learned from Red Mitchell....What i'm trying to say is it didn't matter to Chet what you started on, he heard and played it all! No problem!
Tell your tutor to go get some tutoring!
And, by the way, i'm a self-taught ear player and I don't think you can tell by my playing!

Don't know if it addresses your topic exactly, but here's a snip from an interview of Stan Getz done by Bay-area saxophonis Mel Martin:

MM: Does not composing your own music sort of free you as a performer? I often think it's a bit of a curse to have to play one's own compositions and especially at times when that particular selection might not be appropriate but it's your's and there is a commitment to perform them.

SG: I've always regretted the fact that I've never formally studied and learned the mechanics of writing music. I don't know if it frees me, but it's a pain in the neck to have to depend on others to write things, or if I have something in mind and am barely able to tell someone what to play behind me. Most musicians seem to be able to follow me because I've learned enough chords to be able to play them without even knowing their names.

MM: I've heard you play some very complex stuff like Chic Corea heavy duty changes. Are you saying you don't analyze chords, but instead simply play them by ear?

SG: I try to throw the changes away after I've looked at them and play by ear. I don't believe in playing over the changes, which I may do a lot, but I don't like it. When I'm really free, I like to play totally by ear, knowing the basic structure of course.

Your "tutor" is insane!
Chet's playing wasn't limited by anything...Anyone, in my opinion who says Chets playing was limited by anything, especially theory or harmony is Wacko!
To give you an idea of how little Chet knew about harmony and theory....Someone was taping the band one night, so I have this on tape. We were working this jazz club here in Denver called " El Chapultapec "
Chet calls "But Not For Me"
I say "Chet, you want to start on the one chord or the two chord?" and Chet says "Paul, Paul, I don't know chords"
Now, that's really something when you can't tell someone what chord you like to start on, especially in terms of numbers! As it turned out I suggested we start on the b5 chord which I learned from Red Mitchell....What i'm trying to say is it didn't matter to Chet what you started on, he heard and played it all! No problem!
Tell your tutor to go get some tutoring!
And, by the way, i'm a self-taught ear player and I don't think you can tell by my playing!

Bruce, this is not exactly what you requested but,damn, you cannot beat first hand experience...

i have always found it fascinating how musicians that went to the "Conservatory without Walls " (to quote Bert Turetsky) are/were able to play ,as in the case of Chet, so beautifully.

Bruce what is your take on this idea given your familiarity with with contemporary classical composers ? The Messian quote for example.

But my tutor said something like : Ah yes, but you can hear that in his playing- how limited he is as a soloist

I was basing my "insane" statement on your tutor's above statement.

It's interesting what you say about "getting more out of chords..." Maybe Chet felt that he was getting all he could ? Don't know.

Bruce, while your instructors resume is impressive, Paul played with the man in question.

I have been playing and studying jazz since my teens..I have had many opinions on "Whatis Jazz" st first it semed like a sport-first to the finish line wins...Then I went thru various and sundry ideas. Now I just play it and I do not try to figure out "why"

I would like Paul to expound on his playing in terms of being "untrained."

It seems that since he has the rep and experience maybe he can articulate his approach.

Theory is extremely valuable, it's a great way to learn the language of music. Many people will be limited if they don't have some understanding of theory. However, I don't think Chet Baker was one of these people. It seems that he was able to get the music that was in his head to come out of his horn and his voice. Because much of that music may have been theoretically simplistic doesn't make it "simple" or "limited". If a person is thinking about theory on the bandstand it will likely be less enjoyable than someone who is using their ears. I would bet dollars to donuts that a quintet of "ear" players would smoke a quintet of "theory" players. That's not to say that cats who have a lot of theory knowledge can't also be ear players.

Or, in the interest of brevity:

Use theroy to study music, use your ear to play music.

I suppose this comes down to what Jazz is all about, or what your aim is, as soloist?

So is it to play the most beautiful melodic line you can, or is it to explore and find something interesting, that hadn't been played exactly like that before?

So - I find Chet Baker's playing very melodic and beautiful - whereas something like Joe Lovano's "In the Land of Ephesus" is not what I would call "beautiful", maybe not even melodic - but I find it very interesting and maybe exciting!

Bruce - I think this says everything most eloquently. Its not an either or question you pose, but one of choice at the time to you take your horn to your mouth or bass to hands.

So - are you agreeing with the initial premise that Chet Baker played theoretically simplistic material - however beautiful, melodic and satisfying it might have been?

I would have to spend more time listening to Baker to make that judgement. You seem to be drawing the line between traditional tonal standards and microtonal/non-western/serial type compositions and using that to judge whether or not something is "theoretically simplistic". By that standard yes Chet Bakers music tends to be simplistic. But I personally don't think that really speaks to your instructors comment about Chet's lack of theory knowledge "limiting" him as a soloist.

I suppose it depends what you mean by "smoke"
Well, I mean if you take one combo playing "Autumn Leaves" and listening and reacting to each other and another (also playing Autumn Leaves) where the soloist are saying to themselves "if I play this scale over this chord it will be hip", I beleive the former will smoke the latter.

Jazz players with digital electronics.

Jazz with Palestinian microtonal musicseptet augmented by a string quartet influence by the atonal music of Schonberg
All of this stuff sounds very cool to me and right up my alley. I just think that comparing someone like Chet Baker to this type of stuff and therefore determining that Baker was "simple" or "limited" is a bit unfair. Also, I feel that if any of the above performers puts theory before ear on the bandstand it will have negative results.

but I suppose that's what I like....:hmm:
That's all that really matters.

I would like Paul to expound on his playing in terms of being "untrained."
It seems that since he has the rep and experience maybe he can articulate his approach.

In interest of survival in a rhythm section, unlike Chet, i've learned basic survival tools so that I can "feed" changes to a pianist or guitarist.
Being 62 years old helps in terms of knowing the tune vocabulary and the experience that goes along with it all helps. But, in terms of just "musicianship", i'm pretty low in scale of musical knowledge. I've been playing this stuff for so long that eventually everything takes on a pattern. I'm also a firm believer in learning the lyrics of standards.
Just because i've learned to yell out changes doesn't mean that I can take 'em apart and put 'em back together again. It's kind of selfish on my part to just know enough to get everybody to play my changes!

I suppose my trouble is that as a part-time musician, I don't feel I can aspire to all that - but I just want to grab the important lessons and what will help me to understand and progress in the best (hopefully quickest) way...:hmm:

No trouble there, I'm in the same boat. For those of us who are part-time or amateur and (at least in my case) not amazingly naturally gifted, I think theory knowledge becomes even more important. I certainly don't have the practical experience that might make up for not knowing one chord form another.

It does sound like you have a great instructor to work with there. Like you say the "limited as a soloist" comment about Baker may be somewhat of a misunderstanding.

From what I've seen and heard, most monster jazz musicians have great knowledge of music theory, as well as great ears.

What's kind of funny to me is people treat ear and theory as to diffrent things, while they should be the same! You want you ears to be able to hear all those substitions and progressions you write down on paper etc.

Working in both areas will make you a better musician.

/lovebown

For any "theory" to be useful at all in a playing situation, it has to be internalized to the point that it becomes ear playing - otherwise the application of the theoretical principle is either mere experimentation (good, if it leads to a better understanding of the sound being experimented on) or just wanking (semi random or digital). It's all about "pre-hearing" before playing and trying to make sense, just as in language it's best to have an idea of what you say before setting your tongue in motion...or you can simply repeat out-of-context platitudes in no particular order, in which case you have a bright career in politics ahead.

While we're on the subject of Chet being an example of a great player with no formal theory, another famous and pertinent view is that all great "ear players" are demonstrating their mastery of theory without being aware of the verbal or written explanation of that sound...for instance, I am sadly unaware of the official "rules" of grammar to the point that I couldn't even tell you what an "adverb" is or does, yet able to write at something more than an eighth-grade level because I've absorbed the language in an intuitive sense from reading a lot of books by those with a much greater understanding of the language than my own. It is not uncommon for the same phenomenon to happen in the language of music. I know a lot of great players who have absorbed the language of their style in this way, and who can (figuratively speaking), play their asses off...yet couldn't tell you much, if anything, about what they were playing or why it works. Tyrone Wheeler is a local player here like that, and he's the most in-demand bassist in the region. Does it (the fact that he doesn't "know" theory) limit his playing? I suppose the argument could be made that it does - it's just not likely to made by anyone sitting and listening to him play, if you know what I mean. :)

I don't dispute any of that Chris - but you have to admit that different Jazz soloists have different sounds - so the "sound world" of Chet Baker is very different from say, the artists I mentioned earlier - Lee Konitz or Joe Lovano - and I can't imagine for example, Chet Baker playing something like Joe Lovano's : "In the Land of Ephesus".

What I was trying to understand was whether that has anything to do with study of music theory or not?


There are too many variables involved to know. As far as I'm concerned, theory is nothing more than a tool to help facilitate increased vocabulary, and in some cases help explain the context in which certain sounds have worked in the past. Obviously, since I'm a theory teacher, I find it useful in certain situations. But as I said, in the end it's not about how you came to know what you know, but what you can say with it once you know it. I think the point some are taking exception with from your teacher's statements is the notion that Lovano (for instance) is somehow "better" than Baker because he can do things that Baker never did. In my estimation, this is a worthless argument, as its apples and oranges. Is NHOP a "better" bassist than Charlie Haden because he can play faster, more complex solos? I've got about about 20 records with Charlie Haden on them, and only one with NHOP, so perhaps I'm listening to an inferior bassist? Or maybe they're both great, and I'm just more into what I hear from Charlie?

Is pasta better than rice? I'll eat either if it's cooked well.

What I'm trying to get at is whether the kind of music I would like to play and understand better, comes from an exploration of theory primarily or from ignoring theory and playing what you feel like.
The phrase "playing what you feel like" is not relevent to this discussion. What does that mean - "playing whatever you want to", or "today I feel stressed so my playing will be angst-ridden". I am going to put words into your mouth and say what you meant to say was "playing what you hear" or "playing by ear".

As has already been mentioned, most people incorporate both; theory for the shed and ears for the gig (not really that black-and-white, but you get the idea). The other point I have to reiterate is that those people who consider themselves "ear players" are not "ignoring theory". It's just that they don't need an explanation of how things work because they already know it intuitively. They have learned by listening and absorbing from actual music, not words that somebody wrote about that music. And while they may not be able to tell you in words what it is they know, the level of music that they play will show you how much they know.

Furthermore, there are good and bad "ear" players. Just because you eschew theory, it doesn't make you the next Chet Baker. Just because you have a PhD in theory, it doesn't make you the next Anthony Braxton. (Not that there's anything wrong with that).

The real question is, what kind of learner are you? Different people learn in different ways. Tactile, aural, visual, etc., so how does the study of music theory fit in to your personal learning style?
So - I played in rock/pop groups for 20 years and played what I felt and heard in my head/heart - but it never sounded like Jazz in any way.
Well, why would it?
Just listening to Jazz has never helped me understand how the Jazz I liked has been put together, only studying theory.
If that's what helps, then run with it. Just keep in mind that theory will only take you so far. Perhaps what you are lacking is adequate ear training. Maybe the reason you can't understand how the jazz you like is constructed, is that you can't identify what it is that you're hearing. I'm talking about the ability to recognise intervals, chord types, rhythms, etc. the instant you hear them. The thing is, developing your listening chops is really just a branch on the theory tree, and once you explore this more you find that understanding theory and using your ear are not mutually exclusive. Each informs the other.
So - it seems difficult for me, when people tell me to use your ear and play what you feel and it'll be OK - as I did that for 20 years and never got anywhere near!
"Use your ear and play what you feel" sounds to me like watered-down overgeneralised advice from someone who doesn't know how to teach jazz improvisation on a nuts and bolts level. Is that a direct quote? From whom? How much credibility does the giver of this advice have?
So - I talk to my regular Jazz tutor about what we're doing and his advice seems to directly contradict what people around here say - what am I to do?
Just as there are different ways to learn, there are different ways to teach. As long as the goal is the same, does it matter which road you take to get there?

And after all of this advice, and as much as I love this website, don't take our word for it. The internet is a largely unregulated, uncensored mass of miscellaneous information. It's surfer beware. You'll just as easliy get reliable info as not. But you've been around the block, so you knew that. I guess what I'm saying is, don't feel like you have to get a consensus of opinion on every topic. This is, after all, very subjective.

T-Bal, what a great post. Well said, man.

But, what I was actually asking - was: can you tell whether somebody has studied theory just from listening to their playing or choice of material?

No. Or more accurately, not unless you're talking about a student-level player who simply develops licks and pastes them into his or her playing. What folks keep saying in this thread is that there are people who have learned to play in an harmonically rich style even though (or perhaps despite the fact that) they haven't studied lots of theory. Someone who has studied theory perceives that harmonically-rich material as "harmonically advanced" because it would take a lot of theory to describe it. The ear-player just says, "Whatever, that's what moved me at the moment." And either approach is valid, and beautiful, as long as everyone is leaving themselves open to the music of that particular moment.

And again, to echo T-Bal, Bruce, if theory studies help you to understand the music you want to work toward, go right ahead.

Wow, great posts by both CABAL and COOKING SHERRY! I agree completely. If I may take the question of whether you can "hear" if a player is versed in theory one step further, let me offer you a comparison of two players, both of whom you can hear on our very own "Sampler" page: If you'll listen to one of my cuts right after one by Paul Warburton, in addition to the fact that you're hearing inexperience following experience and relative ham-handedness following smooth refined technique, you'll also hear that my "harmonic language" is, in my estimation, a bit simpler than Paul's even though I'm a music theory nutcase and he's completely self taught. The reason for this is that I vowed a long time ago to leave all theory in the shed and only take what's in my ears onto the bandstand. My harmonic concept sounds simpler than Paul's simply because he has bigger ears than I do right now...but I bet if you asked an objective newbie who didn't know either of us, they'd tell you that Paul was the one with theory training. Just a guess, but I bet I'm right.

Speaking of which, it looks like I've got about 22 years to get my ears to where Paul's are right now - no easy task! Back to the woodshed...

By looking at Guernica, can you tell whether Picasso studied draughtsmanship and what he knew about it, whether he knew the chemistry and practical techniques behind paints and other media? Can you tell the degree to which his sculpting influenced his painting? Can you tell how much theory and book learnin' he had? Can you tell what grumpy old teacher kicked his ass when he was a student, whom Picasso always looked back on with respect?

I think the answers to these questions matter only to those who study Picasso with an unnatural obsession. To the rest of us the question are totally freaking irrelevant.

To generalize this topic beyond playing jazz music and to speak of all the arts: the issue you're raising is a classic theme. Let's call it Talent versus Training (I actually like the word "Discipline" better, but think of how that would be indexed by Google; think of having to write it with a capital "D" all those times and of how I lose the two-T theme.) The history of art (perhaps the history of all human creativity) is to a degree a history of the tensions between these two.

Just riffing on that idea a little bit, I'd say that only Talent is capable of achieving real breakthroughs in vision and expression. Geniuses come along to whom "rules" just don't apply; once (and however) internalized the rules aren't useful to them in any way, shape or form. Pro forma rule-following is a roadblock in their expressive path and teachers don't scare 'em none neither.

On the other hand, I'd say that one would be very misguided to disregard the power of Training. The woodshed and classroom meisters of the Training side can do amazingly sophisticated things with their knowledge and pedagocial methods. They can do those things deeper and longer and with amazing power and authority and what the hell's wrong with that? They can systematize and teach and leave something lasting behind in that way too. The kinds of achievements in this camp I'm thinking of are western classical architecture, Rembrandt, maybe Alfred Hitchcock if I thought about it a bit. (Hey, I'm blowing and it's early in the day; some slack, please.)

I can't say what I think about music theory any better than what DURRRL said -- he's obviously done some very teacherly thinking and talking on the topic, 'cause it's exceptionally well expressed. (You can't say "exceptionally well expressed" to a new mother, can you? If there are any reading, no double entendre intended.)

The point, Bruce, is to know what you want to say and to figure out a way -- by knowing yourself, your intellectual and learning styles -- of getting yourself to say it. This may involve a theory-based, intellectual approach and it may not.

If we are looking at The Greats, at those whose work is everlasting and is a benchmark and inspiration, then the question "how much did theory help them?" is utterly irrelevant and useless. It's their work that matters.

If you aren't hearing good jazz in your head, I don't see as how you'll ever play good jazz. A great many of us need the intellectual path theory provides to actualizing the inner music, but some don't. In my own case, I've loved and listened to jazz for over 30 years -- along with The Beatles it was the first music I'm conscious of hearing and digging (I'm 43 years old.) I've been playing music for 25 years but double bass only 5, and it's only since I've come home to DB that I've gotten serious about developing my skills in jazz. Before then I was a fan, not a player. Since I was a little kid, I've never had any trouble imagining jazz solos in my head and actualizing them through singing, whistling, beating on things, whatever. What I'm trying to do now is teach myself (with a teacher, thank you) how to translate that inner voice into sound waves using the double bass I've got my body wrapped around. I need a bit of theory to act as a light to shine into the corners that Charlie Parker could see into all on his own.

Wow, this thread is really inspiring some great philosophical statements! Thanks guys!

But, what I was actually asking - was : can you tell whether somebody has studied theory, just from listening to their playing or choice of material?
You could always speculate, but why bother? If what you're getting at is, do creators of "cerebral" sounding music come from an academic, theory oriented environment, while creators of "visceral" or "soulful" sounding music come from an absence of formal theoretical knowledge, the answer is maybe, or maybe not. Again, does it really matter? You listen to what ever you like for whatever reason - whether it appeals to your head, heart, or both. Personally, I am compelled and inspired by a wide range of music that runs the gamut from heady to soulful, understated to intense. I don't know if Gene Harris studied theory, or to what extent. I do know that he sounds great. Same for Kenny Garrett.

Demon blue rondo a-la turk, I just read your post. Great stuff.

But basically - it just struck me as interesting that one person who I respect a lot, said you could hear that somebody didn't study theory - so I wondered how?
But everybody so far seems to be saying the opposite, so I haven't got an answer...

Bruce, I think you do have an answer. I can't imagine anyone, no matter how sophisticated (better roll down the window!) theoretically, after hearing Wes Montgomery for the first time say: Boy, he should do some studying! Same goes for ALL the others from Errol Garner to Buddy Rich.
And what about those crazy Brazilians?? The musical education in that country is ZILCH, but music is their second language. They all (practically) play the guitar and sing.
Ivan Lins writes some stuff second to Bill Evans and Gil Evans only...for whole orchestras, but has to have someone else write it down!
Chris make some good points....except for the obvious putting himself down and putting me up.

Chris make some good points....except for the obvious putting himself down and putting me up.


I didn't mean it quite that way - I'm proud enough of where my work has brought me to date, and looking forward getting further along the path before all is said and done. Crusty (and accomplished) old ****ers like you give the rest of us something to aspire to. I love the fact that you're out there doing what you're doing, and especially with the passion and enthusiasm that you put into it. I don't know if this will make any sense, but I hope I can grow to sound as young as you when I'm as old as you. :)

I didn't mean it quite that way - I'm proud enough of where my work has brought me to date, and looking forward getting further along the path before all is said and done. Crusty (and accomplished) old ****ers like you give the rest of us something to aspire to. I love the fact that you're out there doing what you're doing, and especially with the passion and enthusiasm that you put into it. I don't know if this will make any sense, but I hope I can grow to sound as young as you when I'm as old as you. :)

Thanks Darling!
Bruce, I was wondering what school or conservatory you're taking these classes in? You might have mentioned this at some point but please refresh our collective memory.

I feel it would help me if I understood how certain music was created

It certainly does help to understand how certain music was created, and that is what theory is for. But theory isn't always the way to go about creating music.

I want to make best use of my time and the regular Saturday classes take up time and effort in preparation - so I am interested in making sure they are worthwhile.

Do you enjoy them? Have you learned anything? They sound like they are worthwhile, but only you can answer that.

But basically - it just struck me as interesting that one person who I respect a lot, said you could hear that somebody didn't study theory - so I wondered how?

Well let's say someone spends a whole musical carreer playing simple melodies based on common forms. Just because that's what they choose to play doesn't mean they don't know theory. I'm sure there are examples of players who play very "out" or complex stuff, but don't know any theory. So it doesn't really make any difference.

I'm sure there are examples of players who play very "out" or complex stuff, but don't know any theory. So it doesn't really make any difference.

Agreed. Just this past year, I had the pleasure of teaching a graduate jazz theory class that included a great alto player from NY who wasn't very strong in theory, but could play all of these amazing symmetrical outside substitutions intuitively, just from listening to records... and this guy plays outside with incredible intensity and honesty. One day, I did a presentation on symmetrical reharm techniques, and asked everyone to try them over rhythm changes at the end of class. All of a sudden, guess who couldn't play to save his life? Afterwards, we talked about how I was only asking him to play the same kind of stuff he always played from the heart, but from the mind this time..and he said that was incredibly difficult for him to do. We had a laugh about it later, but I found the situation very instructive.

I'm fairly similar to the "personal history" you outline, but I haven't had Jazz solos in my head and been able to actualise them - So - my quest is to get this happening - but how?
Ear Training. Then more ear training. After you've done that, move on to some more ear training. (It's ongoing, and cumulative).
I also believe that singing in a choir helped develop my ear and sense of relative pitch, identifying notes in a chord, etc. As long as you are not learning pieces by having them spoon-fed to you, then repeating back and memorizing by rote. Rather, you must actually read the music. When you are forced to sightsing, you realize you must 1) Recognize intervals in the staff, 2) Know what they sound like in your head, and 3) Reproduce that sound on your instrument (voice). This is akin to the notion of "prehearing" ideas when you improvise, albeit on a much more elementary level. But if you can't do what I just described, there's no way you're going to achieve anything more than a mediocre jazz concept.
I was explaining it is the original Jazz compositions that inspire me more than playing standards
What are you talking about here? Ornithology? Giant Steps? Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum? There are harmonically complex standards, as well as harmonically simple jazz tunes. When you're getting your s*** together, start with tunes that have simple progressions, whether it's a standard or a jazz tune.

IMO, you need a healthy dose of standards in your repertoire. Understanding how to navigate the relatively conventional progressions usually found in these songs (yes, songs) is a prerequisite for the other stuff. Besides, how do you expect to get called for gigs if you don't know the standard repertoire? I just think that knowing how to play on standards is a necessary component to developing a solid foundation of harmonic knowledge in jazz.

I'd be interested in any rebuttals, though.

Sorry Bruce but I have to take issue with several things here and ask what your esteemed tutor had to say this Saturday as promised in an earlier post by you.

So - for players growing up in the 50s or before - then Jazz standards were everywhere and that was how you learnt. For people like me, getting into music in the 1970s - that was all long gone, old hat and the music of our parents that we hated - the worst insult was "Middle of the Road" music!!

OK you live in Brighton - the city of mods and rocker fueds but really, what's this got to do with good or bad music.

So - why should I have to play music that I don't particularly like and which is only rarely played at any Jazz gigs I attend? So, I can imagine it's different in the US - but "European Jazz" is much more about original compositions, fusions with other music and less about standards.

I disagree - it's just that you don't go to those gigs. Also, music on tour has to get a grant and get-a-grant music usually means some attempt at worthy world fusion. Now lets list some players - Stan Tracy, Pete King, Alan Barnes, Art Theman, Nigel Hitchcock, Mornington Locket, etc, etc - even Soweto Kinch or take a favourite of mine Stanko, undoubtably European but the starting point of it all is Miles and standards even if there is never a standard in the set.

So at maybe 1 in 7/8 gigs I see, there will be more standards than originals - most small Jazz groups I see, though, are writing their own tunes for the whole set - and I tend to buy the CDs and like this music.

Fantastic, but you don't study jazz without looking at the heritage - do you want to play jazz or not? If you're happy with your listening why can't you be happy with your playing?

But anyway - surely it's better to practice tunes you like and are interested in ? .

The same thing as for listening goes for playing. If you don't learn the basis for tunes, form, harmony and time based on the jazz heritage you won't play jazz. But this isn't talk-jazz.com and yo might want to plough your own furrow.

So - what's wrong with me practicing tunes I really like, by Coltrane, Horace Silver, Freddie Hubbard, Chick Corea etc. etc. ?

I'm not a professional and have a full-time job - so why not do what I like, in the time I have - surely that's more motivating?

...because by your own account over many posts in many threads it hasn't got you playing the jazz-like sounds you want to and anyway - tunes by these composers clearly have a heritage in song-book-form. Its a chicken and egg coach and horses question. These composers started at the begining but as an amatuer you feel you can start at the end?Now we-re way past the snobbery of the 70s can't you go back to your roots? After all, every musical mehod starts witht the simple stuff - but having said that, there is nothing simple about most standards.

One final point about standards, is that by playing certain tunes over and over you learn about expression, variation, subtitutions and all the possibilities open to you. Play new tunes all the time and you only have time to play it one way and you never discover the language of possibility.

All reasonable points - I was just making a discussion point - I don't see why it always has to get personal about me - can't we just discuss it on a theoretical/academic level ?

So surely there must be other people who like Jazz but are not that keen on standards?

I didn't go to my Jazz class - due to circumstances - that is, I joined a queue for tickets to the play-off final in Cardiff between Brighton and Bristol City and it took me several more hours than I expected!! :(

Yes Bruce, you're right - it shouldn't be personal, please accept my apologies.

My some-time girlfriend goes on endlessly about how she dislikes standards and is only interested in interesting material - but then she did come to the conclusion that she didn't like or want to play a whole tranche of jazz. Her liking is often something in odd time signatures, which to play is great if you've grown up with them and bl***dy hard if you haven't. Often these peices don't fit with jazz swing although there have been many attempts.

I guess the question is - what do I want to be able to play and with whom? and then go out and learn the music and the musical language of the people you want to play with. Chet mostly stuck to standards and often the same ones such as Autumn Leaves. He learnt his language inside out, and that of the players he wanted to play with presumably by osmosis. Personally, I don't think there is time or talent enough in my life to learn more than one musical language - but with that I might be able to play with others from other traditions. Trying to absorb myriad traditions, I'm suposing, would leave me to be very superficial in everything I play. I think I have to choose, and my choice is jazz built on the tradition.

Sorry to hear you missed the class and I hope the playoffs are worth it.

OK you live in Brighton - the city of mods and rocker fueds but really, what's this got to do with good or bad music.



I disagree - it's just that you don't go to those gigs. Also, music on tour has to get a grant and get-a-grant music usually means some attempt at worthy world fusion. Now lets list some players - Stan Tracy, Pete King, Alan Barnes, Art Theman, Nigel Hitchcock, Mornington Locket, etc, etc - even Soweto Kinch or take a favourite of mine Stanko, undoubtably European but the starting point of it all is Miles and standards even if there is never a standard in the set.



Fantastic, but you don't study jazz without looking at the heritage - do you want to play jazz or not? If you're happy with your listening why can't you be happy with your playing?



The same thing as for listening goes for playing. If you don't learn the basis for tunes, form, harmony and time based on the jazz heritage you won't play jazz. But this isn't talk-jazz.com and yo might want to plough your own furrow.



...because by your own account over many posts in many threads it hasn't got you playing the jazz-like sounds you want to and anyway - tunes by these composers clearly have a heritage in song-book-form. Its a chicken and egg coach and horses question. These composers started at the begining but as an amatuer you feel you can start at the end?Now we-re way past the snobbery of the 70s can't you go back to your roots? After all, every musical mehod starts witht the simple stuff - but having said that, there is nothing simple about most standards.

One final point about standards, is that by playing certain tunes over and over you learn about expression, variation, subtitutions and all the possibilities open to you. Play new tunes all the time and you only have time to play it one way and you never discover the language of possibility.


Thanks. You just saved me a whole lot of typing. :)


NIGEL BRUCE,

Nobody is trying to twist your arm in an effort to get you to play standards. But I'll add my voice to the chorus that says that standards are the foundation upon which the house is built. I love original music as much as the next guy, but for me it's an "inside/outside" proposition - in my (classical) composition studies I was always encouraged to "experiment" and "go further out" by those who were into more abstract kinds of music. I did a fair amount of this, and the results always felt contrived to me, as if I was trying to add weirdness or abstraction to something much simpler that I was hearing. My music became more "modern" only when I started listening to Bartok and Ligeti all the time, so that those sounds were in my ear instead of on my brain.

In short, you are what you eat. If you want to sound like a jazz player, listen to jazz all the time, to the point where you can sing it all from memory, and to the point where it starts to come out of your instrument based on a sound rather than a concept. There's no problem if you don't want to sound like a jazz player - just do what you do, listen to what you listen to, and let that come out. But if you want to have that same foundation as a lot of the players out there who started with straight ahead stuff and went beyond, you can't skip that first step. A lot of guys I went to school with as composition students thought it was hip to "get outside the box" as fast as possible because that was what was seen as "progressive" or "hip". But the ones who jumped outside "the box" without first exploring its contents didn't sound "hip" - they only sounded disconnected. The only ones who ever sounded "hip" got outside the box by boring a hole directly through the side of it from the inside, so that their music had life-giving roots which fed it. It also meant that they were hearing their music as a continuation of their experience rather than an attempt to escape it.

I need to go, but I would advise anyone who wants to sound more "jazzlike" to spend some time with the concepts described in T-SHIRT's most excellent post on this page. There's a good reason he sounds as good as he does, and a central aspect of that is described in his post.

I like discussing and exploring this from both sides, bit I do agree with you and Mike essentially - from a personal point of view, I think I need to get more standards under my belt and I think what I'm going to do to kickstart this, is to get a Bass Clef book of standards and learn to actually play the heads of as many as I can - at least a hundred.

I think that's a good idea, but instead of learning 100 out of a book, why not start with 10 or 20, and learn each from a specific classic recording (also using the book if you like the safety net)? That way, you're killing two birds with one stone - learning the melody as phrased by a jazz master, and then emulating the vibe that whatever group it happens to be takes to the approach to improv on the record.

I think this'll be a good way for me to get them in my head, as I don't end up listening, by choice, to a lot of standards.

If you do go the book approach, I would definitely recommend singing through both the melody and bass line before touching the instrument. Ears are so much more musical than fingers!

I like discussing and exploring this from both sides, bit I do agree with you and Mike essentially - from a personal point of view, I think I need to get more standards under my belt and I think what I'm going to do to kickstart this, is to get a Bass Clef book of standards and learn to actually play the heads of as many as I can - at least a hundred.

I think this'll be a good way for me to get them in my head, as I don't end up listening, by choice, to a lot of standards.

Bruce and Chris and T-Bal and all, this thread is so good it's like a good movie (or documentaire) with happy ending and all. When I go home I'm gonna sing my Eccles sonata (my new assignment) before I even touch my bass !

God, I love this place.

ah guess ah dun went 'n sterd up anuther hornets nest

I suppose it's like the argument about whether you need to play DB with a bow if you know you will always play Jazz pizz - so if you really know you want to play a certain type of Jazz , why should you have to play all this other stuff?

I suppose the obvious answer is that you don't have to, but it helps and is a tried and trusted way...?
Yes.

The only "certain type of jazz" I want to play is whatever my own thing happens to be, which inevitably is an amalgamation of everything I've ever listened to, practiced, and performed to date. It also varies depending on the group, event, venue, etc. As a Bass player, in order to get the calls you must be versatile enough to fit in to different styles, while still maintaining your own voice. Bruce, I surmise that someone of your wide-ranging musical interests might realize that. Do you really only want to play a certain type of jazz? Or do you want to get called for gigs?

Although my cuts on the sampler demonstrate my affinity for modern, original jazz, I enjoy and am comfortable playing more traditionally, everything from Dixie to Swing to Bop to Hard Bop, and most everything in between. It's not that I'm boasting. It's what I have to do to earn a living. And I love and respect this stuff. Having experience in a broad range of styles enables me to be more effective in one specific style, in that they're all related, evolved from/into one another, and interwoven.

Although my cuts on the sampler demonstrate my affinity for modern, original jazz, I enjoy and am comfortable playing more traditionally, everything from Dixie to Swing to Bop to Hard Bop, and most everything in between.

Funny you should mention that: my statement would be, "Although my cuts on the sampler demonstrate my affinity for traditional jazz playing, I enjoy and am comfortable playing more modern, original jazz". I'm actually very close to being in Bruce's boat. I'm not a Bebop player, but I play one on TV. Left to my own devices, I'd lean far more toward original and off-the-beaten-path kind of stuff and play traditional stuff in my spare time, but life insists on reversing the roles. But there's plenty to be learned the way things are, and learning those things over whatever period of time will only help me when I get to do the things that I REALLY want to spend more time on. Each feeds the other. And when you get down to it, how can playing a lot of challenging stuff (challenging in my case because I'm not all that great at it) be bad for overall growth?

It's not that I'm boasting. It's what I have to do to earn a living. And I love and respect this stuff. Having experience in a broad range of styles enables me to be more effective in one specific style, in that they're all related, evolved from/into one another, and interwoven.

Bingo.

There are so many flawed premises here, I'm not sure where to begin.
First of all (and this may bring the opening question and T's and Durrl's comments together), the question is NOT could Chet play a Joe Lovano tune, but what would he hear to play on a Joe Lovano tune. The best improvisors (and Chet was certainly an excellent improvisors) take the vocabulary that they have and use it in the situations that they are in. So Chet would play and sound like Chet. And Joe would play and sound like Joe. It's not about reproducing a style, it's about sounding like yourself. In whatever the situation. Not playing licks, not playing scales. Playing what you hear. Which is why you can have a recording of Sonny and Bean and tell the difference.

Bruce you really seem to have this bug to quantify and identify precisely and exactly what you have to play so that you can say "There, I've played jazz". It ain't like that.

As far as WHY your tutor would say something like that I would have no idea, it sounds somewhat mis informed to me. If you want to test the veracity of his opinion, why not put together a blindfold test and play him a bunch of different players and see if he can identify the depth of their respective theoretical backgrounds. And we can go from there. it IS entirely possible that he's just saying something he heard somebody else (who's playing he respects )say. And then we gotta find out why THEY said it.

But it's the same thing with Lennie, the bull**** you hear about his playing being unswinging, cold, unemotional. You sit and really listen, you hear how much bull**** that is.

This is inflammatory. I am weary of those who live a less organized or less thoughtful life bashing someone who is simply a little more orderly or a little more thoughtful by incorrectly using extreme words like "precisely and exactly" to describe their attempt to explore a topic in greater detail.

You can deduce from the post you quoted that BLED BRUCETODAY lives "a less organized or less thoughtful life"? Feel free to share the orderly and thoughtfully constructed chain of facts that led to this conclusion.

This is a music theory forum on the internet. It is ok to come here and type words and ideas.

Yes, and that's what just happened. Bruce posted in his particular style, and Ed replied in his particular style. If you've been around this side of the board for a while, you'll know that Mr. PUKESPRAY is kind of like the DB forum's pet mastiff. His bark is far worse than his bite, and if you make any attempt to get to know him (hint - he likes to be scratched behind the ears with some force), I feel certain that you'll find his posts and playing to be far more "organized" and "thoughtful" than your first impression led you to believe. Sure, like any mastiff, he'll slobber all over you when you pet him, but I can assure you that it's a very organized and thoughtful kind of slobber. Trust me - and you're getting this advice from a cat person. :eyebrow:

And when you get down to it, could anything be more appropriate to a thread in which the central theme seems to be, "When X plays, he's going to sound like X, whereas when Y plays, he'll sound like Y"? Substitute Ed for chet and Bruce for Joe, and there ya go.

Wow. It's Maryland Law all over again.

still interested in why, Jazz soloists sound unique and recognisable - so they have a "sound", presumably based on note choice...?
Is that difference dependent on how much they relied on theory and how much on ear to any extent, or what is it?


But Bruce, you recognize writers from their own styles, don't you ? Actually this is true of many human activities: every one has an own personal way of doing them. And you recognize classical instrumentalists from their styles too, even when they play the same notes. Would you say it's because one knows more musical analysis than the next one ? There are many more factors than just ear and/or theory, and I don't think both approaches are mutually exclusive.

I guess I missed all the fun. Where'd FLAME99 get off to? Did you change your mind? Did you leave in a huff? Are you napping so that you are less weary?


Anyway - "so why is it a "flawed premise?"
The flawed premises as I see them ( and I guess I must apologise for the brevity of my solo, I was required elsewhere. I DO have other things to attend to...) are
1. that there is some fundamental difference in formally schooled and informally schooled players conception of playing jazz
2. familiarity or personal acquaintance is somehow better informed than direct experience
3.that there is some secret "short cut" that can somehow get around putting in the work necessary to become an improvisor in this idiom
4.that jazz is somehow an intellectual construct
5.that when someone has unsuccesfully tried "playing what they hear" the assumption is that something is wrong with the process and not their ears
6. that there is more "creativity" involved in "original" music than in the standard repertoire

Is that enumerated clearly enough PHLEGM99?
Additionally, Position #1 infers the flawed premise #6. It doesn't matter HOW you get to the point that hearing harmony suggests specific melodic choices to a musician, what matters is that it DOES. That what you play over/through WHATEVER changes are only made because it's WHAT YOU HEAR. If you got to that point by working on singing six part chords and studying, great. If you got to it by wearing out record after record of Bird and Pres solos, great. I continue to maintain that merely studying what scale goes with what chord IN NO WAY prepares you for what is really going on when a group of improvisors in the jazz idiom gets up to play.

2. it's great that you've been working with the same cat for so long. But hearing what somebody who is removed from a situation talk about something is NOT the same thing as hearing what somebody who is in the situation talk. Actual experience supercedes displaced experience. Your tutor (if this is indeed his own opinion, not something cadged from someone else) is basing his analysis on WHAT HE HAS HEARD. So is Paul. And since Paul was on the bandstand next to this guy night after night after night his experience with the depth of Chet's playing is going to be deeper and more varied than your tutor's. But you have always shown a tendency to place more value on limited experience that is "closer" to you. And that's just playing silly buggers.

3. There is no shortcut. Some people have the ability to get from ear to instrument very quickly, some have to work at it. But it's not a destination (ah, now you has jazz), it's a journey. The more you can hear, the more you hear that there's more to hear. The more the tune becomes a conversation, the more you hear that there's even closer to get. The deeper you get into the groove, the more you hear that there's deeper to get. You can decide you want to stop anytime, but it's not like if I learn just a little more theory, I'll have it. If I learn a few more scale substitutions, I'll have it. If I learn all the modes of the melodic minor, I'll have it. I know you WANT it to work that way, but it doesn't.

4. It's not about knowing, it's about doing. You can play notes that aren't wrong, but if all you are doing is solving some mathematical equation or plugging what's supposed to work in, you aren't communicating anything. Jazz musicians play together, the tune is just a framework, not a straightjacket (we'll get to this a little more in #6). And jazz is visceral, it's about the feel, being together, swinging. But above all it's about getting that personal statement in your personal voice out.

5. There's playing what you hear and then there's hearing what you play. And we've had this discussion before. Until you start getting into some serious ear training and singing, you don't really realize the lack of clarity with which you hear. I say that, because this is something I've been through, my teacher went through, ALL of us go through. And it's hard work. It's not just closing your eyes and "playing what you feel like". The reason that when you do that it sounds like a Led Zepplin riff is because that's what's under your fingers. You've played it often enough that you can hear what you play. But it's not really in your ear, becuase you would be able to use that limited vocabulary to improvise over a standard otherwise. We all came up with little tricks, riffs, licks that make it sound like we can play. But it's not the same thing as hearing a line in your head and then playing it. HEaring with clarity, knowing what you are hearing (and it doesn't matter if you know that it's the b9 of the V of iii or just that it's THAT NOTE , THERE as long as you can play it on your instrument when and where you hear it) and getting it out of your head and into the air, THAT's the big deal.
Likewise (and this can relate to #6 as well), what you like to listen to is a direct relation to what you can hear. Maybe the reason you like to listen to "original" music rather than standards is because there are elements that you can hear and relate to. You really want to play jazz (and you certainly don't have to if you don't want to) spend some time transcribing lines and solos over standards. Cop some Aebersold recordings and start playing along with them WITHOUT using the books with the changes in them, just try to hear stuff to play and play it. The deeper you listen, the more you hear that there's a lot going on.

6. Last but certainly not least. This has to be my most favorite cop out. I was doing a gig with a Germman guitarist, who was in NYC for a few gigs, and the first thing he said to me on the gig, before we had even played a note together, was "I don't play STELLA BY STARLIGHT and that stuff, there's nothing left to say on it." Which I thought was funny because what you are really saying is " I'm so bereft of creativity I can't come up with anything meaningful to say so I have to noodle over harmonic structures that are unfamiliar to most people." Like I was saying earlier, if Chet was on a gig and somebody called PINOCCHIO, he would have the choice of hearing something and playing it or not. Some players, like Ben Webster, are great improvisors that stay with material that they are comfortable with. Some, like Coleman Hawkins, push themselves into newer musics and stretch themselves. It doesn't mean one is less "creative" than the other. Their musical personality is at one with their psychological personality. Jazz isn't about playing hard or complex or theoretical. It's about approaching playing over harmony (even static harmony) with a certain predisposition and rhythmic approach. If you have the ear and the wit and the ability to communicate your intent, it doesn't matter if you are playing TEA FOR TWO or CENTRAL PARK WEST. You shouldn't need to rely on outside resources for creativity, that comes from inside. Keerist, listen to Sonny on WAY OUT WEST, on MORITAT, on any number of what, to most people, are just the stupidest tunes in the world. As an aside, listening to Sonny is what got me to saying that there aren't ANY stupid tunes, just tunes that I can't hear well enough to play something pretty on.

So as to the question CAN YOU HEAR WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE HAS A GOOD FORMAL THEORETICAL BACKGROUND BY HEARING THEM PLAY I would answer - I just don't give a ****. It doesn't matter, what matters is how well what they are playing communicates to me. Both what I can hear and emotionally. Are they saying something, are they telling me a story, do I hear who they are?

And as to the implied question WILL I BE ABLE TO PLAY JAZZ BY LEARNING MORE THEORY I would answer (as I have continually) - It ain't about that. It's about getting that understanding in your ear. Being able to hear a chord and NOT decipher what's going but HEARING what's going on. and having that sound (and series of sounds) suggest specific melodic lines to you. You can learn all the vocabulary you want, it's still not going to give you ideas.

Bravo.

Not trying to be a hard ass or anything, but Donz was it absolutely necessary to quote Ed's entire post, when you're the next post right behind him??? :confused:

Maybe not, but it IS flattering....

Before this thread finally peters out (and I kinda wish it would now)I finally HAVE to do this OFF Topic , well known story about Chet Baker and his left and right brain abilities and disabilities. Red Mitchell tells this story on a video tape I have. I tend to believe it because of Chets infamous R & L brain notoriety.
The infamous Benito Mussolini has (had?) A son named Romano Mussolini who is (was?) a pretty damn good jazz pianist. Some European promoter booked them (Chet and Romano) together for some Italian concerts. Romano met Chet at the airport, walked out to the bottom of the flights' stairs, extends his hand to shake with Chet and CHET says: "Sorry about your Dad!"

Phil, Yeah, it was. Ed's diatribe was very well put and not only did I want to offer my kudos but also quote it in order to reemphasize what I think is a great little essay.

From another thread, quoting Jim Stinnett

"When you do transcribe extensively, you will be amazed with the simplicity of music. The same is true of our spoken language. You do not need to use big or sophisticated words to express meaningful and powerful messages. If the previous statement were not true then we would all be bored with words like; the, and, it, yes, good, etc., How can I express myself without using the same words and sentence structure as everyone else on the planet? Obviously it is the message which is unique. Not the language."

And

"I also want warn you against the pitfall of overplaying. You can see that each melody above begins with the root. Of course there are other choices, but you will not become a good player by exploring the endless possibilities, but rather by learning a limited amount of material WELL. Only then will you truly begin to speak and improvise in this language called jazz.

I continually have students asking me to help them improve their walking lines. They all feel that they need more ammunition when what they need is better aim. If you will transcribe the great players, you will see the simplicity and repetition. Believe me, this is no mistake.

I recently had a student (who is quite proficient on his instrument) ask me, after playing a line from "Walking In The Footsteps Of Paul Chambers", "How did he [PC] keep from getting so bored?"

Answer: One probably would get bored reciting a formula, or speaking randomly, (playing d Dorian) but if the message you are conveying is coming from your heart (ear) no one gets bored; you or the listener."


So Bruce, these aren't just "some guy on the Internet", these are two players with EXTENSIVE experience playing jazz at a world class level. SO you can tell your tutor that it's not "some Internet guy" disagreeing with him, but somebody who played with Chet Baker.

And I particularly like Jim's quote about asking for more ammunition instead of trying to improve the aim. To me, that's what these jazz workshops (at least the way you've been presenting them) are pushing. Here's more ammunition, happy hunting.

When I was playing guitar, my then teacher turned me on to Wayne Krantz. He isn't a jazzer, but he was into improvisational music and his stuff sounded like a mix of Jazz, Rock, R&B, Blues, and even Techo(Drum & Bass). My teacher attended his guitar workshop and was presenting Wayne's ideas to me. He is completely original, and his philosophy is to completely come up with his own sound.

Basically his way of doing things was kinda unorthodox. The idea was to work with scales, but only with a subset of tones (like just some sort of pentatonics say on a lydian dominant scale). The idea was to get that sound of only a few tones in your head by limiting yourself to soloing with only those tones. Double stops, chords, all kinds of stuff in really untraditional guitar playing ways. In interviews, he said he spent 15 years inventing himself and his results are really pretty cool. Check it out: www.waynekrantz.com

WARNING: it isn't jazz, and it may sound strange but give it a try.

I think this is a great example of someone who, by trying to do more with less in a way, has created new sounds in his head by his own playing. So in a sense, it can be trained too. All this stuff is coming out in a totally unique way.

EDIT: Hrm... Anthony Jackson is playing with him and then he's going to tour with Chris Potter. Interesting...

You did get at least one answer: http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1461656&postcount=36

It's hard to tell whether you're joking or being purposefully provocative.

I'm sad to see this high-quality thread running in this direction. Is there more of substance?

I know I've spoken my bit, the outcome of which can be boiled down to:

My goal in my own playing is to get to the point where I never have to think of any theory on the bandstand, which makes me in line with Chet Baker in playing approach. I have studied music theory formally, but only to speed up the process of understanding what I'm hearing and building new vocabulary lists of things I want to learn to hear. Once I reach the point where I can hear and actually use these new sounds, the issue of how I learned to hear these things is immaterial. The goal is to learn to hear new things...how you do that should be inaudible to the listener.

. . . a book with . . . analysis of different Jazz soloists' styles . . . but nothing has appeared along these lines in the thread.

OK. There's a book containing someone else's opinions about hallmarks of the styles of prominent jazz musicians. And it has examples. Perhaps the examples are drawn from well-known performances by those players; perhaps they made-up by the author as his/her effort to concoct "typical" solos illustrating the perceived hallmarks. But no matter what, by the time it gets to you, it's third-hand because the author is interposing his/her anlysis AND the page between your ear and the actual music. For that analysis to become immediate, you need to listen to the music and compare what you're hearing to what you're reading. And at that point, the analysis might become extremely helpful to you in understanding what you're hearing.

The analogy is often drawn between fakebooks and cookbooks. Reading about cooking is good and learning about what makes refined cooking is good. But if you want to truly understand how food works, you have to taste it yourself. And it's only when you put on your toque and get to work that you truly understand how difficult it is to accomplish the goal.

There's no need to get defensive. As many of us have said, if reading and thinking and theory and background help you to learn the music, go right on ahead!

Many of us are skeptical about your instructor's pejorative concerning Chet Baker. But ultimately, if your instructor thinks that grapes grow on trees lining the highway to Dover it doesn't matter as long as he's listening and playing music in the moment when he plays. And, of course, helping you to do the same.

Last week I played with an old friend who has a Ph.D. in jazz performance. This gentleman is the author of one of the leading college-level texts on improvisation in the US, now in its third edition. He teaches at Juillard among other places. This, clearly, is someone who lives and understands theory. When he plays, it's all forgotten.

Sincere good luck. Go practice.

OK - so the above is what I was asking (quoted directly from my first post in this thread) - how could I have made it any clearer? :confused:

By not asking alla that superfluous stuff you apparently don't care about.

There are any number of books of transcriptions, I am not aware of any specifically on Chet. But there's a book of trumpet solos, alto solos, tenor solos, I'll try to chase down what the titles are from my buddy Matt (if he still has them). They are of dubious use to the improvisor because it is a better practice to make the transcriptin yourself, for reasons I've stated elsewhere. But you don't have to specifically look at Chet, Todd Coolman's book on the history of jazz bassists has countless solos throughout the history, so you'll have a nice concise book (under 100 pages) that goes from Jimmy Blanton to jeez, I can't remember who the last player in there is, Miroslav? Something like that. Personally, I think you would be much better served by checking out a book THINKING IN JAZZ. It has interviews with a large number of jazz improvisors and has a pretty in depth discussion of the WIDE range of backgrounds and approaches.

Bruce, having an "intellectual" discussion about music is not the same thing as intellectually-based music. It was the latter I was dissing and -- bien sur -- taste is always a personal matter. I have less taste for intellectual debate than I used to (there was a time when I made my living off of it) but I'm not anti-intellectual at all. Only anti-beanhead.

Jazz was born in the whorehouse and the saloon and got its life force there. It started life as a sensual music for dancing and grooving and partying -- people liked it and didn't give a crap why they liked it. Sometimes I think jazz had great misfortune to have some musical sophistication and modernism contained in it from the start -- that attracted the intellectuals, academicians and other eggheads who couldn't play it but couldn't stop talking about it either. There has been a troubled relationship in jazz between the body and the mind ever since.

Show me a single lasting, successful movement in jazz that has come from theory and the intellect. Show me a single artist. I'm not thinking of any right now. Stockhausen ain't jazz, praise Jah.

From another thread, quoting Jim Stinnett

And I particularly like Jim's quote about asking for more ammunition instead of trying to improve the aim. To me, that's what these jazz workshops (at least the way you've been presenting them) are pushing. Here's more ammunition, happy hunting.

Jim is a former teacher of mine. He is the real deal. Heed Jim's words Bruce.

Where to begin…

So - I was at my regular Jazz class and talking to the tutor at a break and was asking him about whether he thought you could become a "rounded" or complete Jazz soloist without studying what scales were available to you and pursuing the kind of Jazz theory that is in Mark Levine's book etc. Or if you could do it just by ear?
You can do either one or both. It's a long journey, whichever path you take. But we've already covered that.
I know what I should be doing, I just don't have time to do it!!
16,000 posts suggest otherwise. Your threads tend to elicit lots of advice and suggestions, so here's one more. MAKE TIME TO DO IT! I'm not trying to be mean, just motivational. Prioritize!
So I remembered discussions here where people had mentioned how Chet Baker was completely an "ear" player and so I brought up his name. But my tutor said something like : Ah yes, but you can hear that in his playing- how limited he is as a soloist - he only plays certain kinds of things - I think he mentioned pentatonics, but I can't remember exactly, I might be wrong. So - can anybody shed any light on that - do you think it shows in their playing if a Jazz soloist has limited or zero theory knowledge. And I would be particularly interested if anybody has analysed Chet Baker's playing and can point out if he does have limitations, what kind of ideas he used in solos etc. I only have couple of recordings where he plays,although I've heard a lot more on the radio, TV etc.
Wellbutrin and others have commented on the absurdity of characterizing Chet Baker as limited in any way. But let's explore this idea of limitations. We all have them. It's a matter of 1. recognizing them, and 2. choosing to work within them or to push their boundaries. It's also a matter of recognizing one's own strengths and exploiting them. Jim Hall is often characterized as a guitarist not known for blazing chops, compared with, say, Wes Montgomery or Pat Martino. But I don't view this as a limitation. Rather, it is but one parameter set at a certain level so as not to overshadow others (melodic creativity, tone, the use of space, rhythmic variety, chordal vocabulary, group interplay, and on and on). If Jim Hall had decided early in his development that he wanted to be the type of player to spew out long sequences of eighth note bebop lines, I have no doubt that he could have. But as we all know, this music is about finding one's own voice, and Jim has certainly succeeded in that regard. And for the record, both Jim and Wes are on my list of favorites. I also think that to do what he does, he has achieved considerable technique on his instrument, just applied in a unique way.

Just found this through another thread: "Because he was completely self taught, Wes developed a unique approach to the guitar which astounded most of his contemporaries. His different techniques allowed for a different tone and a novel approach to guitar soloing. Wes always insisted that his techniques arose from limitations, but that these limitations opened up new possibilities."
Or if there are any other players who are well-known for ignoring theory, but play solos that aren't limited by this?
Again, we all ignore it (at least we should) when we're in the act of improvising. Players who may have ignored it to a large extent from the get-go include the aforementioned Stan Getz and Wes Montgomery. Let us suppose for a minute that a lack of theoretical knowledge is a "limitation", in the way that Jim Hall's so-called lack of chops is a "limitation". All that really means is that one facet of an artist's total package has less emphasis than other facets. You cannot assume that a "limitation" in theory will cause "limitations" in technique, soul, groove, creativity, even complexity, because music does not begin with theory. It's a tool to analyze music that has already happened.

Here's more food for thought. Blues musicians typically have "limited" harmonic knowledge, and basically rely on one scale or set of notes to use in a solo. But that's part of the craft of being a great blues musician, the ability to do more with less, finding the creativity to come up with more of the still infinite possible variations that can be found in that one scale. So even if certain parameters are set at a comparatively low level, the potential within those levels can have NO LIMIT.
So my point is that as a listener/Jazz fan, surely I can transcribe and analyse the solos of two well-known players and then point out the differences?
So, now I regret picking Chet Baker as an example, but he was mentioned in previous discussions around here...but what I was getting at, was whether anybody had analysed his solos and identified the characteristics of these and compared this with other players, with a very different "sound" - that was the question to which I have not received a reply, really.
You can point out the differences in some aspects of the results, but you can only speculate on the differences in the processes that produced them. Not even the player himself really knows what all is involved in the process. We are talking about how does the mind work when creating art. Shoot, how the mind woks period is largely a mystery. Furthermore, a written transcription cannot tell the full story of the improviser's "sound". You can't notate every nuance of articulation, phrasing, emotional content, etc. Those details have as much if not more to do with the player's sound than the choice of notes.

What you can learn is how a player takes raw material (a scale) and arranges the notes in such an order as to create a melody. You can observe how this sequence of notes might outline chords, and chords within chords, and chords on top of chords. You can extrapolate how the player uses voice leading to demonstrate the change from one chord to another. Take note of how motives, rhythmic and melodic, are developed and manipulated, and how this can give a solo coherence. How the pacing of the solo progresses from start to finish. And NONE OF THIS WILL TELL YOU IF THE PLAYER KNEW THEORY. But if you decide to MAKE TIME and learn this solo, you'll probably pick up a few things along the way. Because one of the most effective ways to teach and learn is by example. We can sit here and talk about this stuff til we're blue in the face (as we often do) and it won't have any effect on your playing until you do the work.

To paraphrase: Music is an art, not a science and the possibilities of every avenue in the art are endless. We can only seek to develop (or free up) our own voices that eventually lead to that state of being able to channel 'God' as Ray says in another thread. And everybody has their own unique path to summit the mountain of Freedom and Self-Expression through Music.



breathe deeply...... aaaaahhhhhh. :D

Shoot, how the mind woks period is largely a mystery. Furthermore, a written transcription cannot tell the full story of the improviser's "sound". You can't notate every nuance of articulation, phrasing, emotional content, etc. Those details have as much if not more to do with the player's sound than the choice of notes.

An excellent illustration of left brain and right brain thinking. Without question, the fields of education and science have discriminated against the right brain for decades.
The transcription is done by the left; it was executed by the right.

In all the 30-odd years I've been picking away at theory -- and in a big chunk of those years I was in school intensively looking at things like how we know what we know (generally, not just music), and what is scientific theory, and other such excuses to drink too much and sleep too little -- I have never found an instance where music theory is anything but descriptive. It really has bugger all to say about why a music works. Music theory is all about describing sound and sequences of sound in such a way that people can talk about music. That's it!! Tremendously useful thing in that sense but why kid ourselves there's anything else there?

All the really good stuff in art comes from vision and execution and it matters diddly how or why they got there.

Music theory can never tell you why Bird played that note, it can only talk about the note and the context in which the note was played. There are no musical secrets contained in theory that -- if you've been listening -- you haven't heard in music a thousand times already.

Music theory can never tell you why Bird played that note, it can only talk about the note and the context in which the note was played. There are no musical secrets contained in theory that -- if you've been listening -- you haven't heard in music a thousand times already.

Very good D!

IMO, Bruise, "simple" in this context is not quoting to any theoretical knowledge, or lack thereoff.

R2

"When John McNeill discovered that he didn't have the technique to copy Miles Davis' performance on ESP , he pursued an alternative course : "copping a lot from guys like Nat Adderley who was easier to hear - the stuff he played based on a blues scale especially. Also Chet Baker, when he wasn't moving fast , since he played real simple."
I'll read more and maybe come back on this....!

:hiding:

As R2 says "simple = unknowledgable" is NOT the equation. I am also concerned that, in your quest to prove yourself "right" in some fashion, you're looking for information (no matter how out of context it is) that "supports" your suppositions and disregarding anything that doesn't. For example , in the quote you provide -
"copping a lot from guys like Nat Adderley who was easier to hear - the stuff he played based on a blues scale especially." This isn't really talking about what Nat played as much as it is about what McNeil could hear. And is he talking about theoretically understanding what is going on? Well again, from your quote "When John McNeill discovered that he didn't have the technique to copy..." It's not that Nat's playing was easier to understand and therefore play, it was that it was easier to hear, again, "Also Chet Baker, when he wasn't moving fast , since he played real simple."
All of this speaks to technique, NOT conception or understanding.

Which again, gets us back to -what question are you really asking here? You said you were only looking for examples of different soloists to compare to see the difference in how they approached similar (harmonic) situations. But now here you are back to CAN YOU HEAR THEORY IN SOMEONE'S PLAYING.

My suggestion would be, finish the book. Think about what you've read. Then go back and read it again. When I got my first copy (I'm on my second) I read it, three times back to back. There's a lot of info and you shouldn't rush through it. THEN bring something to the discussion, the issues raised in the book and what you've thought about them. Not hastily assembled quotes.

I know you can't stop saying "This isn't about ME", but the thing that I (and I imagine most folks here)have a hard time is seperating this set of posts from the other 16,000+. And the subtext of those 16,000+ posts, as I hear it, is - I like the way players who have a lot of vocabulary at their disposal play, if I want to play like that then the path to follow is to learn a lot of vocabulary. And I continue to say NO, that's NOT it. Those players you like, who happen to have a large vocabulary at their disposal, have something to say. And the fact that they have a large vocabulary means that they can say what they want with a level of specificity that other players may or may not have. BUT (and here's the point) there are plenty of other players out there who HAVE a large vocabulary, but have very little to say. Or do not have the tools to use that vocabulary in a meaningful way. Vocabulary, in and of itself, is not the answer to your question. Being able to communicate with meaning and intent is. Overly concerning yourself with one aspect simply because it is the most easily quantifiable aspect may be satisfying to you personally, but it is not going to help you get to be the player you seem to wan to be.

I got a bit carried away on Friday - apologies to all. After a few pints at a leaving do, I logged on here (mistake one) rang the ex (mistake two) and peddled home (mistake three - on a downhill stretch I went straight over a road sign, knocked over the three bollards behind it and haven't been able to play bass since - I can just about stop a string now with my LH)

The weekend got worse but that's another story.

As for Lee Konitz I'd start earlier with Lester Young and his copiers (almost everyone of note). I suspect the harmonic richness of thier ideas came from copying and constant jamming at all night cutting sessions where one persons originality tried to be matched by another - and these skills were all developmed by ear not theory. Two things - one, these were very talented guys and two, not even the finest jazzeratti seem to do this or have access to 365 jamming let alone the rest of us.

If there is one message that's clear to me, you need time and dedication within a jazzy environment to develop soloing skills, and if you can play what you hear no-one will know if you got theory or not. Since you need to be able to play what you hear anyway, it begs the question, how does theory help you? I suspect that in the early stages of development it papers over the cracks in hearing and in the later, identifies areas for exploration - maybe. After all, you know what you ain't heard out of your instrument?

Bruce, this is precisely where your (apparent) position is encountering difficulty: you are equating the "non-theory" approach with simplicity and satisifaction with a static, non-developing music. You are simultaneously suggesting that a theory-informed approach is associated with "pushing the envelope" and "searching for areas to explore". I sincerely and strongly disagree with that point of view and I think there are others who share my position.

As I said before, theory is a language of description. Because of that, it is also a tool for observation. There's a bit of circularity involved here. If I have never heard the word "arpeggio" before and haven't got a clue what it means, then you teach me the word and concept of "arpeggio", it doesn't mean that all of I sudden I "understand" what's going on with the guitar part to Twist And Shout. I only have a word to use to describe what I hear. Along with everyone else on the planet, I've heard those sounds before, I just didn't know they were called arpeggios. And guess what?? Now that I've learned the word (and concept) that goes with the sound, those freaking arpeggios are everywhere!! I just might start playing a few of 'em myself and I might really dig the outcome. I haven't done anything different, or anything more impressive, than what any infant does in learning to become human -- I'm learning a language and then using the language to shape my world.

That guitar part, though, was created first -- envisioned first -- and described second. You may be aware, Bruce, of some musics (which are actually listened to) that are theoretical in the sense that a conceptual idea came first and then the music but I'm not. Teach me.

The thing with music (and other areas where individual variation -- i.e., "talent" -- is so wide and apparent) is that some people playing some musics don't require this mapping of words to concepts that is language. They hear and play on their terms and it works. This is music we're talking about, not nano-biophysics fer chrissakes. The costs of an unsuccessful musical endeavour are only ridicule and embarassment, not death and bankruptcy. So you find "intuitive" musicians but not "intuitive" engineers and surgeons.

John Coltrane and his messing with that Russian cat's book of scales is simply a sovereign artist using whatever means he wants to use to fuel inspiration, to stoke up the vision-making apparatus.

Let me assure you, Bruce, it is not personal when I say: you're barking up the wrong tree with this theory thing. And I don't say it to shut you up, either! Bring on your good game, baby and let's hit the epistemological boards....

All in good fun, one hopes.

Damon - you've stepped into the world of describing accompaniments which have been hammered out on a purely theoretical basis for hundreds of years in western music, usually involving arpegiation such as the so called Alberti bass - 1535, 1535 etc and it lives today.

Now if you want to discuss the effect learning of theory or not on the affect it has on harmonisation and orchestration, that's another discussion.

Bach wrote a tune based on his name - H is Bb in German - apparently this sort of thing was common. Then there were attempts at 'music of the spheres' or ascribing notes to astrological (yes not astronomical) observations.

However, this is akin to starting with a lick and hearing what you can make of it such as A Love Supreme?

So has the question now become "Is jazz improvisation a conceptual construct best approached by prior, non-musical decisions?"

That's twisting things a bit Ed - you can start and build an improvisation with a theoretical construct, as all those in jazz school get taught, but it ain't gonna be nothin' unless the player can hear it and its relation to the background. And then when mission is accomplished, you'll never tell if they read the book or heard it on the street and thought - yeah, that's a nice idea - I'll play some of that.

That's twisting things a bit Ed - you can start and build an improvisation with a theoretical construct, as all those in jazz school get taught, but it ain't gonna be nothin' unless the player can hear it and its relation to the background. And then when mission is accomplished, you'll never tell if they read the book or heard it on the street and thought - yeah, that's a nice idea - I'll play some of that.

Ain't me doing the twisting.

Anytime you DECIDE what to play in advance of an actual musical event, you aren't improvising. You shed things to get deeper - bigger ear, deeper conception, the ability to execute what you are hearing - and when that work reaches the level of "unconscious" knowledge - it comes out as an unplanned, organic response to the musical situation of the moment. Much like this conversation, if you had decided yesterday that today you were going to type "Afghanistan banana stand" or some such. What are the chances that that particular phrase is going to make sense? Come on guys, let's talk about fruit stands, please oh, please.

I'm not saying you have to like music that is based on a conversational exchange, that is of the moment, that is based on approaching improvisation over a specific harmonic format as a loose framework that is as malleable as the ear and the ability to clearly communicate what they are hearing as the involved musicians want to make it. But that's what makes JAZZ IMPROVISATION different than Quwali singers improvising or Malian douson'guni players or Baroque organists or any of the myriad other musics of the world in which musicians improvise.

If I hear something on the street and it makes it into my playing, it's because I heard it in the context of what was happening when I played it.

Ain't me doing the twisting.

Anytime you DECIDE what to play in advance of an actual musical event, you aren't improvising. You shed things to get deeper - bigger ear, deeper conception, the ability to execute what you are hearing - and when that work reaches the level of "unconscious" knowledge - it comes out as an unplanned, organic response to the musical situation of the moment.

You are inspired all the time huh, and so hip you never apply forethought to anything? This doesn’t fit with what I hear even the greats playing. Organic, by which I guess you mean that it builds and develops, implies planning or at least the application of musical grammar – pre-tried template.

Much like this conversation, if you had decided yesterday that today you were going to type "Afghanistan banana stand" or some such. What are the chances that that particular phrase is going to make sense? Come on guys, let's talk about fruit stands, please oh, please.

Que?

I'm not saying you have to like music that is based on a conversational exchange, that is of the moment, that is based on approaching improvisation over a specific harmonic format as a loose framework that is as malleable as the ear and the ability to clearly communicate what they are hearing as the involved musicians want to make it. But that's what makes JAZZ IMPROVISATION different than Quwali singers improvising or Malian douson'guni players or Baroque organists or any of the myriad other musics of the world in which musicians improvise.

This is your definition of jazz improvisation only. It is what I find very special, but it doesn’t stop me listening and loving Oliver, Armstrong, Ellington to In a Silent Way, Bitches Brew – I could go on – where “conversation” is more a blending of elements with a soloist. There is more collective and conversational improvisation than just that in the jazz idiom – folk musics for one – never been to a session of late? Even educated rock players do it – (well they do here – ho ho).

If I hear something on the street and it makes it into my playing, it's because I heard it in the context of what was happening when I played it.

You puritan you - you wouldn’t make a very good anarchist.

Anytime you DECIDE what to play in advance of an actual musical event, you aren't improvising...when that work reaches the level of "unconscious" knowledge..it comes out as an unplanned, organic response to the musical situation of the moment.

What is unconscious knowledge?

If I speculate unconscious knowledge to be something, should I fear tainting my unconscious knowledge with attributes that will constrain my ability to improvise?

When I think of organic responses, I think of boundaries, perhaps instinct, but not freedom. Do you mean improvisation to be instinctual responses to external stimuli?

What is unconscious knowledge?

If I speculate unconscious knowledge to be something, should I fear tainting my unconscious knowledge with attributes that will constrain my ability to improvise?
It is lay terminology for that which emanates from the right brain, the site of our creativity and imagination. It is our synthesizing, intuitive, holistic, subjective, non-verbal, subconscious side. It is where experiential, as opposed to analytical, sequential, and objective learning takes place.

Reading this thread has been interesting. It's like a intellectual cat chasing it's tail.

But I'll bite. My real understanding of improvisation actually comes from Martial Arts (aikido to be specific). And it is extremely creative, you wouldn't know it unless you did it. The idea is this (applied to music):

1) We all practice things to embody them and make them a part of ourselves.
2) There are many different paths to doing this. One of which is analysis through theory, others can be by copying verbatim, repetition, and free playing.
3) The ultimate goal is to FREELY bring forth all these elements in varying degrees, without premeditation. You become your music and your music becomes you. You can use an analogy I learned in Aikido to apply to music: "By the time you think of a response [to an attack], it is already too late". You're too busy creating and analysis can't really happen in the moment while you're playing. And external stimuli simply becomes a source in your myriad of sources that produce your music in the moment.
4) If you bring forth something premeditated, it is no longer genuine, real, or in the moment. It then becomes like a cookbook answer to a question. Classical music is still 'real' since your can put much feel into it - I can say this firsthand since I played piano since I was 5 and I play like no robot. Jazz is a different 'type' of improvisation which is alot less restricted in many different ways - rhythmically, harmonically, melodically, feel, etc.

I only seek to expand my skills as a musician, so that I have a deeper, more extensive source that inspires me in the moment to create. For me, this comes through practice and creating, and not neccessarily repeating something someone else has done. Everyone has their own unique way of doing things. There will be many that don't follow theory to create, and plenty that do, and plenty that do both. But to 'put your finger' on the source of creativity on one thing, that's almost impossible since we are all complex and there are NO simple answers (including theory). There are many things that remain mysterious (such as the source of someones inspiration), and CANNOT be explained. That's why we call music an ART not a SCIENCE.

My $.02. Man that was ethereal. :confused: Did that make sense?

Nice post hdiddy!

An article from my personal god on a very related subject....
http://www.upbeat.com/lieb/Feature_Articles/Philosophy.htm

/lovebown

Thanks LOVEBONE.

Oh if I may add...

Bruce, if you feel that theory is what works for you... you shouldn't feel afraid to explore what it can do for you. Perhaps you can take it further than Miles Davis or anyone could (ever thought of that?). Yes they are endowed with a gift, but they too are human.

One thing is for sure, noone can sound like YOU, and perhaps studying theory will bring that source/voice out of you and inspire you like noone else has ever been inspired before. And you will NEVER know until you do it and travel that path to the end of "Bruce's Theory Avenue". But IMHO, to hang around and ask if "this is the right path to mastery" is a waste of time, mainly yours. That's like going to a stranger on the street and asking them how to get to your house when they've never been there before. Nobody, except MAYBE you, knows the way your ultimate voice.

Rather than find the truth in someone elses words, you're better off finding it for yourself, your own truth, and what works for you personally. Everybody is different. If you have time at work to post 16,000 messages, you certainly have time to read a theory book, put on some headphones and listen carefully to some basslines, sneak a peak at music theory sites on the internet, or work on some ear training programs on the internet at work. Seek the answer for yourself, otherwise discussion is just a fun past-time to trade notes and doesn't lead to self-discovery and growth that your own self-learning/teaching can.

I feel strongly more and more every day in my path like this and I think others will be hard pressed to find an answer for me. Nobody can think like I do nor can they ever speak for me and tell me what my voice is.

So... do you guys think I can give Kenny Werner a run for his money? :P

This thread was originally started by Bruce Lindfield. It has generated a lot of discussion and some heat as well. At one point Bruce decided to delete the thread because he felt that others were criticizing him and that he was not being allowed to respond.

The general rule here is that people who start threads can delete them. This is "the exception that proves the rule." The content of the thread is too good to lose, so I revived the thread. In an effort to balance the community benefit with my general inclination that posters should control their content, I have tried repeatedly to separate the musical wheat from the personal chaff. It's possible that I've missed some of each; please accept my apology. I moved several dozen posts about interpersonal interaction into a separate thread. Bruce has now asked me, through Paul, to delete that thread. Well and good; it's gone.

This thread remains. Anyone who wants to delete their personal contributions to this discussion is now free to do so. Anyone who wants to discuss the topic of "Ear Playing and Book Learning" can do so.

I urge everyone who posts on this site to bear in mind that everything you say here faces open review. Think about what you want to say before you speak. If you change your mind or, perhaps even better, if something you see here changes your mind, bravo: Feel free to edit your remarks or talk about it. But please bear in mind that when you post, people will spend time considering what you've said and responding at face value. Don't say it unless, at that moment, you want it to stick around. It's simply not fair to readers, members or moderators to spark a discussion and then say, "Oh well, I didn't mean it anyway."

Back to work.

I urge everyone who posts on this site to bear in mind that everything you say here faces open review. Think about what you want to say before you speak. If you change your mind or, perhaps even better, if something you see here changes your mind, bravo: Feel free to edit your remarks or talk about it. But please bear in mind that when you post, people will spend time considering what you've said and responding at face value. Don't say it unless, at that moment, you want it to stick around. It's simply not fair to readers, members or moderators to spark a discussion and then say, "Oh well, I didn't mean it anyway."

Back to work.


I stand by this statement 100%. If anybody feels the need to give Sam any grief about this, DON'T. Instead, send me a PM, and I'll answer it at the end of the day when I'm good and cranky from dealing with the lack of air conditioning at the Jazz Camps all day. :eyebrow:

While I'm here, I might as well state my own personal belief that typing replies to the kind of people who decide to "take their ball and go home" (aka - delete a large number of their threads/posts) whenever things don't go their way is a big waste of time. Personally, I think I'll just save myself the trouble and ignore these kinds of posters from the get-go. The rest of you folks do what you want.

Hrm... seems like this thread is rather ignored.

Just wanted to state my case anyway that my last comment was written with the intention of providing a positive suggestion and wasn't meant to be an attack on Mr. Lindfield in anyway. Bruce, if you've been offended, my apologies. The thread was locked before I could respond to your comments (I was away for the weekend way back when and I didn't think to PM).

After lovebown's comment to my previous one, I just felt like I wanted to provide more of what I felt about my own discoveries and was maybe a little too excited and eager to realize how my post would be read at face value. I really feel like deleting that last post but the way I felt inspired is still keeping me from actually doing it and I wanted to be taken as encouragement to experiment. Maybe that's why Sam kept it in this thread... I dunno.

But to go back to the subject... At times I think music and the arts are a pain the ass. Why? There's no cut and dry answer that we can grasp easily for almost anything. Just thinking about finding your own voice is a completely mystery and it seems as if you never get there or even come close. It's almost like watching grass grow sometimes. And yet it's like an addiction and you can't keep yourself to trying to practice more and get better and squeeze what little progress you can get every time you touch the instrument. I guess that's when you stop and try to remember that all this stuff is meant for us to enjoy ourselves and not get wrapped up in who's playing better than who or how or why.

Let me start by saying that I have studied music theory and I am thankful for the knowledge however; Every so often it seems like there are posts in which someone seems to think that musicians that have not studied theory are not playing music that is theoretically correct. I feel this opinion is erroneous.

Music theory is a way to measure what the ear hears. It explains the phenomena of harmony and the interaction of pitches but it does not set laws that govern music. If something is pleasing to the ear or in some other way effective it is correct. It is possible to analyze music to the point of paralysis. When I first came to understand chord/scale relationships I would be stopped dead by something that didn't fit my theoretical knowledge. Why? With the advantage of hindsight I can confidently say that I had allowed my horizons to be narrowed by my newfound knowledge. I was more concerned by what was "proper" than what sounded good.

"For any 'theory' to be useful at all in a playing situation, it has to be internalized to the point that it becomes ear playing"

To my thinking this quote is right on the money. If a player is thinking about modes, scales or other theoretic matters it is pretty hard to keep the melody you want to play in mind.

As far as hearing a musician play a solo and evaluating their grasp of theory by what they play I could not agree less. One could easily argue that some of the relaxed solos played by Jim Hall indicate less knowledge of theory than some of the very complex solos played by Wes Montgomery but that would be misleading. Jim Hall is conservatory educated and has studied composition while Wes Montgomery could not even read music. Django Reinhart who soloed magnificently understood virtually no music theory and once confessed to Les Paul that he had trouble finding a C on the guitar. A person humming an improvised verse to a song may have absolutely no knowledge of music but still be inventive, tasteful and accurate.

Another way to look at it is this; suppose you played a solo consisting of only whole notes of the root of each chord in a song. It would be theoretically perfect but it would be artistically wanting. Would our critic of Chet Baker care to argue that this is superior to a Chet Baker solo? :rollno: My guess is that I would have no takers on that one.

Theoretical complexity does not guaranty taste either. Try playing some jazz chops over a Country song. It won't sound right even if it is theoretically justifiable. On the other hand some very creative horn solos that I've copied seem to use their share of pentatonic phrases.

It is a mistaken assumption for someone with a strong background in theory to conclude that persons without this type of background are somehow hindered in their ability to play creatively. My playing has improved since I backed away from being so theory driven as I once had been. Creativity exists seperately from theory. It's nice to know why something works but not entirely necessary.

Hmmm. Took the words right out of my mouth.

Ditto

I'm a bit late to this discussion, but anyway...

What is unconscious knowledge?

Something you know how to do without engaging your conscious mind. In Effortless Mastery, Kenny Werner uses operating a fork as an example. We all now how to use a fork, without even thinking! When you eat your dinner, you don't need to engage your conscious mind in order to use the fork to put the food in your mouth, you just do it. This is because you've had so much practice that it's become second nature. The same applies to, well, pretty much anything, including playing music. When Herbie Hancock plays a 2-5-1, he doesn't think "Ok, chord 2 in G Major, is A-7, chord 5 is D7" etc, he just plays it. Herbie, along with countless other Jazz legends have internalized the language of Jazz to the extent they don't need to think about these things. This allows the the player to play without the interference of the mind, and, as Werner points out, "when the mind is unobstructed by thoughts, music can shoot through the player like lightning through the sky".

I believe this is what Ed meant.

If I speculate unconscious knowledge to be something, should I fear tainting my unconscious knowledge with attributes that will constrain my ability to improvise?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean - how could this constrain your ability to improvise? Does learning new vocabulary constrain your ability to speak? When you play without thinking, you are inevitable drawing on your unconscious knowledge - that is, you're playing what you're able to play without thinking. The more musical vocabulary you can internalize to the point of being it become "unconscious knowledge", the more vocabulary you have to draw on, right?

When I think of organic responses, I think of boundaries, perhaps instinct, but not freedom. Do you mean improvisation to be instinctual responses to external stimuli?

I don't think Ed was talking about organic responses here, in the same sense that you are. This isn't about knee-jerk reactions, and always playing the same thing over the same set of chords, for example. It's about playing what you're hearing, and in order to do this, your fingers need to move to the right place on the instrument to do that, without you needing to think about it - because thinking about it gets in the way of hearing it.

I think I just became a fan of BenderR. The truth hurts, but sometimes it helps.

What is unconscious knowledge?
Well, DONO and some others nailed it. Maybe subconscious is a better term. You didn't have to pause and hunt for the words to respond to my post, you responded with the vocabulary that was there at your disposal, ingrained. You didn't respond with a bunch of words that didn't mean anything, you reponded with the words most immediately "at hand" that communicated the intent and the inquiry that you wanted.
If I speculate unconscious knowledge to be something, should I fear tainting my unconscious knowledge with attributes that will constrain my ability to improvise?
I have no idea what you are getting at. That would be the part of the solo where you threw in a lick you were working on. What is going to constrain your ability to improvise is -trying, thinking, plugging in notes from a chord/scale, that kind of thing. You can't "taint" your subconscious knowledge, it just is. That's what's available to you as an improvisor (or conversationalist). Or, more precisely, what you have worked on in the shed over and over becomes your "subconscious" knowledge, your working vocabulary. And if what I have said, over and over, since I were a wee bairn was "prolly" instead of "probably", that's what comes out in the free exchange of ideas. Saying"probably" causes an interrupt, I have to stop flow and consciously examine what is going to come out of my mouth. And by that point the drummer is packing up.

When I think of organic responses, I think of boundaries, perhaps instinct, but not freedom. Do you mean improvisation to be instinctual responses to external stimuli?
Well, you can play with semantics all you want. I'm anti-semantic. I'm not talking about instinct, I'm talking about conveying intent. And playing jazz, improvising in the moment is all about freedom. If you hear it with clarity, can identify what you are hearing and get that out into the air by playing it on your instrument, ANYTHING THAT YOU HEAR IN CONTEXT is available.

I'm anti-semantic.

There is no place for racism in a forum such as this. Please clean up your language AND your attitude, or you will be turned over to the BERKLEE POLICE.



EdDiTtEd FuR sLePpInG!

There is no place for raciscm in a forum such as this. Are you trying to say I rush?


you will be turned over to the BERKLEE POLICE And put away for 2 to 5 years?

Are you trying to say I rush?

Yes, but with those tired old legs it almost makes you on time. Only the BERKLEE POLICE would worry about something as trivial as this.


you will be turned over to the BERKLEE POLICE And put away for 2 to 5 years?

Indeed. But they'll work a plea bargain for 1 if you resolve the issue quickly...

Jeeze...Two adults

"I'm anti-semantic"

But it makes a good point. The semantics can get in the way of creativity. Analysis is a great learning tool but it does not spark creativity. Creativity has to come from within.

Yeah, that's pretty much what i was getting at WHOLLY.

When Herbie Hancock plays a 2-5-1, he doesn't think "Ok, chord 2 in G Major, is A-7, chord 5 is D7" etc, he just plays it. Herbie, along with countless other Jazz legends have internalized the language of Jazz to the extent they don't need to think about these things.

I would say that (the above quote) isn't even really what's going on. Herbie isn't playing a ii V, he's playing a song and following a line that he's hearing that hangs off the harmony and melody of that song. he's not painting a straight line and then another that intersects the first at such and such an angle, he's not even painting a picture based on principles of dynamic support and structure. he's got a picture of a house in his head and he is putting that on canvas. Chord/scales, function, whatever - it's just NOT a consideration.

What do you HEAR?
WHAT do you hear?
Play that!

I spoke to Barney Kessel about improvisation (I admit it, I'm but a lowly guitar player that doubles on bass) and he reacted strongly and negatively to a question about modal improvisation. His point was that improvisation was just that, improvising. He used an illustration about what I would do if I went out to the parking lot and my car was not there. I would improvise a way home whether it be by calling a friend, a taxi, hitchhiking or walking. My impression was that he meant I would use my wits to get me home, not some elaborate predetermined plan.

He then made the application that if I listened to a chord sequence and made up a suitable melody in my mind that would be the way to improvise. Obviously the challenge is to play that melody on an instrument accurately and this is only going to happen by being competent on the instrument. That's when all of the scales and arrpegios that were practiced in years past CAN be helpful, but only if they are used as tools for navigating the instrument and not as an end in themselves.

Of course when improvising a song the knowledge of the whole song comes into play. The original melody, the lyrics perhaps even the title can have a bearing on the approach someone would take in improvising a tune. Therein lies a point that gets lost in the mix, when a person is improvising they are improvising over a song, not just a set of changes. The changes to Kansas City Blues and Blue Monk are pretty similar but would someone say that the songs, the overall feel is the same. If you went into a country bar and played a Blue Monk solo over Kansas City Blues the audience would not fall all over themselves praising you. Take my word on this one, I know of what I speak. :)

Scales and arppegios are my map to the neck, not my map to making music. This is where the idea of unconscious knowledge meets with the academics of it all in my humble opinion. But there are some people that can make the music without the having studied theory or perhaps even technique. Some of the best players I have ever heard fit in to that category. There are others that have an encyclopedic knowledge of music theory and technique that are unable to improvise or play expressively. Most musicians are somewhere between these two extremes.

(This immediately brings to mind a man of my acquaintence that has frighteningly good guitar technique. As far as techinical virtuosity is concerned this guy has it BUT there is one problem. He is as entertaining to listen to as a skiiled typist. To be more specific, he is as entertaining to listen to as a skilled typist typing out some boring government form. ;) )

In any event, give me the musician that plays from his heart any day. If I had only played from my heart all those years ago in that bar in Forest Lake, Minnesota I and the audience would have been spared a bad memory. :bawl:

PEOPLE OF TALKBASS:
Seems like every post from this BenderR is making eminent good sense. This is a departure from recent TB history. Where's the hot air? Where's the drivel? Where's the snobbery? Where are the insults? Are we going to just sit here and take it?

Of course none of this works unless you are playing on a original '51 Fender P-Bass through a 1967 Bassman amp using OEM Telefunken tubes and a patch cord made by the very hand of Leo Fender. Having an autographed picture of Jimi Hendrix smashing his guitar over a Marshall helps too. :)

There, does that help balance out the good sense? :)

You're a BG player? You're making this up, right? I'm getting a migraine.

What saves you is the tube amp. One of the dumb things I've done in life is let Arnold have my Ampeg. Bulky, but really sweet. Three knobs and an on/off switch.

I spoke to Barney Kessel about improvisation (I admit it, I'm but a lowly guitar player that doubles on bass) and he reacted strongly and negatively to a question about modal improvisation. His point was that improvisation was just that, improvising...He then made the application that if I listened to a chord sequence and made up a suitable melody in my mind that would be the way to improvise. Obviously the challenge is to play that melody on an instrument accurately and this is only going to happen by being competent on the instrument.

I think we probably all agree to this at least at some basic level if not the whole 9 yards. But as a less experienced jazzer, I'd like to ask, how do you guys think this can be put into a type of practice to build improvising skills rather than lick or scale skills? Yes obviously jamming with others is one avenue of doing so, but for myself, a lot of times I feel like I can make things up during a jam but there's really no retention of all of what I created. I can't take what I jammed with my friends and tweak it to make it even better. Neither does learning some other player's solo by rote, except as a means of analysis of the possibilities (like through transcription). But in terms of building improvisational skills, and as opposed to practicing scales and such, do you think it's better to write solos out on paper?

I know that this is more of a personal question that applies different to each person, but I've had a sinking feeling that I should create more written solo's and learn to incorporate different scales that I've understood technically. Doing things this way also makes the playing come more from inspired by who we are than copying someone elses playing. Opinions? Advice?

For starters:
As Ed Foghorn said, "If you can't play it slow, you sure as hell can't play it fast." So, in the privacy of your own home, solo, slowly enough that you can think musical phrases. Start over, repeat, whatever you need to do isolate the act of creative expression. Creativity and speedy chops are separate skills. Don't try to learn two at once. Relax. Don't feel that because the tempo is slow that you have to be overly hip. Miles proved the beauty of an uncomplicated phrase, masterfully executed. This is basically the same advice Michael Moore gave me. John Lewis was never embarassed that he wasn't Oscar Peterson, and the MJQ was a better band for it. Who had faster chops than Dizzy? John Lewis was good enough for him, too.
Rereading your question about writing -
With Michael, I was expected to bring a new composition to every lesson. It could be a blues head, it could be a head on a standard, but I had to employ whatever theory we had discussed. The composition was to get the theory into my brain and let it percolate. I did not write bass solos. I think if you do, you'll be tempted to play them on a job instead of improvising. I once spoke in a lesson about trying out something I had just learned on that weekend's gig. Michael spun around and said "Don't try that on a gig." His point was that the idea was only in my objective, calculating left brain. He wanted me to give it time to migrate to my right brain, the creative side.Sure enough, 2 months later, without thinking of doing it, the stuff just came out of me.
Don't bite off too much. You'll get there.

...how do you guys think this can be put into a type of practice to build improvising skills rather than lick or scale skills? By working on your ear, ear training. By working with a teacher on specific sets of improvisational exercises that put artificial parameters (it's really too much to go into here, I've tried it a couple of times to no success) on the improvisation. By transcribing in a very specific way. So that, as Don says, the musical phrases you think, you then execute on your instrument.






Yes obviously jamming with others is one avenue of doing so...
Well, yes and no. You don't wait til you are playing to practice improv. Go read my teacher's article DOING IT THE SLOW WAY here, see what he says about practicing improvisation.

...but for myself, a lot of times I feel like I can make things up during a jam but there's really no retention of all of what I created. I can't take what I jammed with my friends and tweak it to make it even better. Neither does learning some other player's solo by rote, except as a means of analysis of the possibilities (like through transcription).
For the first part of that statement all I have to say is, you shouldn't be TRYING to take an improvised statement and tweaking it. You SHOULD be aware (either by listening or recording and listening later) of areas that need work, either technically (gee I wish I could play 8th notes) or conceptually (gee I play exactly the same notes whenever I get to the bridge of HAVE YOU MET MISS JONES) to shed. But to listen with idea that you are going to KEEP some material to continue to play is not what you should be aiming for. You want to be able to hear on a deeper level and play what you hear.

Transcribing is one of the best things you can do. Get a half speed recorder. Listen to the solo at half speed (Pres is great to start with, he plays such wonderful ideas) A LOT. start singing along with the solo at half speed. Catch all of the little nuances - dynamics, attack, decay, vibrato, legato, slides - all of it. Sing it over and over (with the recording) until you hit the point that you (nor anyone else) can hear any difference in the sound coming out of your mouth and that coming out of Pres' horn.
Then do it at full speed. Once you are able to sing the solo at full speed with all of the nuance and feeling of the original soloist, THEN pick up your bass and, without the recording, start picking it out on your instrument. By that point you HEAR THE EXACT PITCHES AND EXACT PHRASING in your head, and you just match the notes.

This procedure is EXACTLY WHAT YOU DO when you improvise. You hear a note in your head with enough clarity that you can pick it out on your instrument. In time. This way of transcription is not about getting just the notes, it's about establishing that pathway - hear it, play it. hear it, play it - so that your ear and your fingers CONNECT.
You can put pen to paper if you want to then, I personally don't.

But in terms of building improvisational skills, and as opposed to practicing scales and such, do you think it's better to write solos out on paper? I guess whatever floats your boat. But that strikes me as being about as useful as writing your part of a conversation down and hoping that it makes sense as soon as you start talking to somebody. Just because the paper says that you're going to play a C7 on beats 3 and 4 of the fifth bar, doesn't mean that actually going to happen every single chorus of every single solo. Like a lively and spontaneous conversation you have to be open, you have to be flexible and you have to be able TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTION THE CONVERSATION TAKES.
You build improvisational skills by practicing THEM, not scales, not licks. I like to approach it from the standpoint of the harmony, so I practice playing arpeggios to get them in my ear, I practice singing triads (then 4 part, then 5 part, then 6 part chords) to get them in my ear. If I HEAR the chord, I can (internally) hear notes that move through the chords. If I can play the notes I'm hearing, I can communicate to the other players (and audience) what I'm hearing. And then you aren't playing a bunch of numbers or notes, you are actually playing real genuine music with others who are playing real genuine music. And that's a wonderful thing.

Like gumbo.

I know that this is more of a personal question that applies different to each person, but I've had a sinking feeling that I should create more written solo's and learn to incorporate different scales that I've understood technically. Doing things this way also makes the playing come more from inspired by who we are than copying someone elses playing. Opinions? Advice?
Nope, I disagree. Throwing more big words in a sentence doesn't make it more meaningful. Saying what you mean, in as specific a way as you can, with the language you have the most understanding of THAT'S what conveys meaning. Yes, you shed so that your understanding and your ability to communicate that understanding gets bigger and deeper. But what the other cats want to hear is YOU, what are YOU hearing.

If only I understood more theory, I'd be a better player.
If only I knew more chord scales, I'd be a better player.
If only I knew all of the modes of the melodic minor, I'd be a better player.

It's all bull****. Play what you hear. It sounds so simple, but it takes a LOT of work to get there. Try playing 15 years or so and then finding out that you don't REALLY hear the IV chord. It ain't brain surgery, but it ain't easy either. It takes work. And all of this "if I just learn..." is at its base a way to avoid work and look for a shortcut.

For starters:
As Ed Foghorn said, "If you can't play it slow, you sure as hell can't play it fast." So, in the privacy of your own home, solo, slowly enough that you can think musical phrases. Start over, repeat, whatever you need to do isolate the act of creative expression. Creativity and speedy chops are separate skills. Don't try to learn two at once. Relax. Don't feel that because the tempo is slow that you have to be overly hip. Miles proved the beauty of an uncomplicated phrase, masterfully executed. This is basically the same advice Michael Moore gave me. John Lewis was never embarassed that he wasn't Oscar Peterson, and the MJQ was a better band for it. Who had faster chops than Dizzy? John Lewis was good enough for him, too.
Rereading your question about writing -
With Michael, I was expected to bring a new composition to every lesson. It could be a blues head, it could be a head on a standard, but I had to employ whatever theory we had discussed. The composition was to get the theory into my brain and let it percolate. I did not write bass solos. I think if you do, you'll be tempted to play them on a job instead of improvising. I once spoke in a lesson about trying out something I had just learned on that weekend's gig. Michael spun around and said "Don't try that on a gig." His point was that the idea was only in my objective, calculating left brain. He wanted me to give it time to migrate to my right brain, the creative side.Sure enough, 2 months later, without thinking of doing it, the stuff just came out of me.
Don't bite off too much. You'll get there.


Careful now! For one who complains of a lack of drivel and snobbery from other posters, this latest is remarkably bereft of those very things. :eyebrow:

PEOPLE OF TALKBASS:
Seems like every post from this BenderR is making eminent good sense. This is a departure from recent TB history. Where's the hot air? Where's the drivel? Where's the snobbery? Where are the insults? Are we going to just sit here and take it?
Not to mess with any privacy issues, BenderR contacted me via PM. He studied with my old guitar/bass duo partner Dale Bruning. As I mentioned before on TBDB, that was the poor man's Jim Hall/Red Mitchell duo. Bender reminded me that he used to follow us around town. This alone shows good taste!!HA?
Along with Dono and a couple other TBDB Oldsters who show good taste, great musicianship and a large dose of gray matter and who have been impressed with BenderR's additions to our posts and threads I'd also like to welcome his 2 cents on many of our subjects so far.
Especially with the advent of some older Newbies who seem to be unhappy with our humor and the general way we run things around here.

Originally Posted by HUFF DADDY
Originally Posted by HUD IDEE
Originally Posted by HON BABY
Originally Posted by hmmmdinger


WOW! QUINTUPLE FUQUA'ED! I feel all warm and fuzzy now. :D

Ok I see both your points Ed and Don. Even though I may rote-learn my own written solo's, it's still not improvising since it's not created on the spot - it's not alive, breathing, and a response to what's going on at the moment. I guess what I was trying to get at is the idea of originating or getting the notes into my head by practicing something that originally came from there (the written solo). At times I know I've had trouble improvising simply because I didn't know the tune well enough to "hear" notes. Instead I would get caught up in trying to play over the right changes and not "listen" to what I'm "hearing". Which then brings a new perspective to the importance of learning a tune for me. Learning it until every change comes naturally, and then I'll probably feel more at ease to play what I hear.

Once that happens, then what the notes I hear seem to just come naturally and leads to the next step of being able to execute upon hearing them.

I like your idea, Ed, of transcribing so that the solo can be absorbed by singing it. In the past, I've always gone straight from transcription into my fingers and your explanation addresses why I seem to never get any retention. This has been a major hitch for me since I got so used to playing classical music as a kid, and never improvising until now. I ran out of ideas, singing lines has always helped but I've always used that as last resort. I'll try making it a primary strength from now on.

Thanks guys... I think you gave me a big piece of the puzzle to understanding how I get closer to my own "voice".

Thanks for the kind words Paul. Listening to you and Dale was one of the best musical experiences I ever had. The last time I remember seeing you guys was upstairs at La Coupole. I still love to listen to "Our Delight". I wish I had it on CD.

Perhaps some clarification is in order. Bassically (sic) I am a jazz guitarist. I've backed into some bass playing because I started writing out bass parts for BG players I worked with in non-jazz settings. The rest as they say, is history. I don't usually play a Fender, I do play a Warwick fretless that sounds as good as a plank of exotic wood can sound. Depending on my job situation I may soon take the plunge and buy a DB (and a tiny car to haul it around in.) :)

In any event, I greatly enjoy this forum and the depth of the discussions here. Of all the places I visit on the web this seems to be the most knowledgeable group of musicians I have ever met. The mods do a great job of keeping it civil too.

Quote
"I've had a sinking feeling that I should create more written solo's and learn to incorporate different scales that I've understood technically. Doing things this way also makes the playing come more from inspired by who we are than copying someone elses playing." - Hi-Diddly Ho

I've learned the most by copying horn solos. Upon analysis I've found that many of the horn solos I've liked had a lot of pentatonic and triad based phrases in them. This is NOT to suggest that the guy was thinking in terms of triads or pentatonics when it was recorded. I would agree with Ed Fuqua, "If I can play the notes I'm hearing, I can communicate to the other players (and audience) what I'm hearing."

If you hum, sing or whistle a solo to a song and record it, then notate your solo you will likely find that you were hum/sing/whistling phrases that would stand up to theoretic scrutiny. Recognizable figures will likely appear throughout your solos.

Triads, whether arppegiated or not, are how I organize the fingerboard in my mind. When you break it down to this, music becomes fairly simple and manageable with four flavors, Maj, min aug & dim. These triads can be combined in such a way as to express complex harmonies. The reason I am going into this is simply the fact that this is how I learned to translate sounds onto an instrument. Now, many years later, I don't consciously think about these triads but they still affect my playing, especially my fingering. I want to stress that I am not suggesting the key to improv is triads. This is merely a way of dealing with fingerings.

In any event, I greatly enjoy this forum and the depth of the discussions here. Of all the places I visit on the web this seems to be the most knowledgeable group of musicians I have ever met. The mods do a great job of keeping it civil too.

Glad to hear that not all newbies disapprove of our quaint vernacular. :)


If you hum, sing or whistle a solo to a song and record it, then notate your solo you will likely find that you were hum/sing/whistling phrases that would stand up to theoretic scrutiny. Recognizable figures will likely appear throughout your solos.


Agreed. People hate to sing things that sound bad. Something about singing brings out the best melodic strain in most folks I know, although many students will look at you like you're ****ing nuts when you suggest they transcribe their own (sung) solos. Those that get past the weirdness of the idea tend to do very well.

I inadvertently said exactly what I meant not to say.

"I want to stress that I am suggesting the key to improv is triads. "

What I MEANT to say was: I want to stress that I am NOT suggesting the key to improv is triads.

I was wondering about that. I was nodding along in agreement, and then I went :eyebrow: .

Perhaps some clarification is in order. Bassically (sic) I am a jazz guitarist.
This is f-ing sickening. Not even a BG player, but a guitarist. If you tell us you also play tenor sax, I will hunt you down, I swear.


BenderR "I inadvertently said exactly what I meant not to say."
AHA !!! See, he really is a guitarist.

BenderR "I inadvertently said exactly what I meant not to say."
AHA !!! See, he really is a guitarist.


Or a politician. Or both. Now there's a scary thought! :eek:

Believe it or not, I didn't notice something was missing here, but then I was paying attention to the answers.

Great posts by Bender, Ed and Don. I get it, get the idea and know how to go about what I want to do - thanks guys - but sympathy please.

After my last post p*d off Foghorn I've composed several replies I didn't post coz it really did take a while to understand his Afgan Hatstand comment. Sometime later, what more is there to say now? TBers don't have to refer back, coz what Ed was saying was you couldn't prepare the starting point of an improvisation (many begin there solos on a particular peice with the same phrase) because the next time you played whatever the context would be different.

Well for the most part in most situations amongst the lesser jazzerati it isn't - I've got a darn good idea exactly what is going to come out of my colleagues (mores the pity). You are all talking about acheiving advanced levels of improvising but what a lot of questions arising out of advice given at various courses and classes is of the nature of "try to play this here and here" and "when you see (sic) a 7 chord try this". This is about contructing solos, and the many tools you can use.

In fact, you can come away from these classes with so many items to practise that you become overwhelmed and have no clear structure by which you can develop. Its a long road and you don't get no-where by meandering.

I question the jazz-class teacher ethos - tools are fine, how about sugesting to the class that they tackle things on the basis of the last very impressive post (no sarchasm at all here) by Ed. In my informed opinion, most students at hese classes would say it is not acheivable. I guess teachers don't want to frighten the horses in the battle to keep viable numbers up. Alternatively, you get the asociated board exams where the examiner listens for a quote, use of a certain scale at certain points and sometimes students turn up playing the same solo as eachother.

Sometimes its about instant results and other times measurable results - and publicity for things such as Aebersold together with the whole panoply of jazz teaching to amateurs has to take some of the blame. Its the conflation of improvising and soloing. What in effect get taught, lapped up, and appreciated and give measurable quick results are scales, tricks and licks that require intellectual thought whilst playing and the conceit that you will improvise if you get to know these thoroughly.

However, not everyone wants to improvise at the level sugested here and put it to people in terms of effort, many would be happy with the tricks and licks and to do an odd convincing-ish solo.

Even those that are determined to follow the path to enlightenment are thrust into situations where they are asked and indeed want to solo but are not in a position to wholly improvise. And so you need some tricks and licks, the odd plan in the knowledge that your band ain't that advanced. Surely you can have no problem with that :confused: .

Teachers can give out confusing messages which then further confuse learners when they hear a fully fledged musician say something like - I just play what I feel - which then gets interpreted as all these unwelcome exercises aren't necesary. Or as was inferred by me (I may be wrong), you get a teacher noting Chet not using a panoply of tools that are currently taught and implying its to do with learning by ear.

What is needed is clarity of aims and objectives being put straight and directly. No-one has to frighten people off - just point out that at such a level all you are likely to acheive is x. Its like singing up for an Open Univeristiy course - they tell you from the outset the likely work need to go in (OK - it always varies with talent but ...).

Now I don't have knowledge of the courses and workshops in the US - but I do get a picture of where the absent Bruce was comming from, not that I agreed with him. Given Chris has just done a Jazz camp and is an educator, I'd be very interested to hear his comments - especially how he tackles courses to amateurs. Do these issues arise stateside?

ps:
Whats this gotta do with Chet BTW? I cough - nowt - maybe it should be new thread - but I want it clear from the outset, I'm not going teacher-bashing - they have my great respect - but all comments I've made I can back up with loads of examples. Finally - I don't want no feuds startin' over this - OK! :hyper:

Not everyone wants to improvise at the level sugested here and put it to people in terms of effort, many would be happy with the tricks and licks and to do an odd convincing-ish solo.

Even those that are determined to follow the path to enlightenment are thrust into situations where they are asked and indeed want to solo but are not in a position to wholly improvise. And so you need some tricks and licks, the odd plan in the knowledge that your band ain't that advanced.

Bollocks. If someone wants to "play jazzy stuff" they can find another bassist. If someone wants to listen and work, I don't care whether they're 13, 43 or 73 -- I'm on board.

"I'm may not want to be a jazz musician, but I want people to think I am." Sheesh.

Ok I see both your points Ed and Don.
...Thanks guys... I think you gave me a big piece of the puzzle to understanding how I get closer to my own "voice".
How Diddy Do That?: Actually, there may be some fundamental differences between the approaches of me and the right honnable gentleman from the great state of Georgia, even though we finish with the same tag line. But maybe not. I'm not really sure why I do what I do. I'll need a little more time in which to reduce a long-winded post to a medium-winded post. More later. And Foghorn and I will be meeting maybe next week and maybe talk about this, and maybe not. And no matter what I say, he can outplay me.

How Diddy Do That?:

You watch that humor stuff Dono....You're gonna have Maestro all over you like ugly on a gorilla!

It becomes something a computer could do. Of course it sounds like something a computer did also.

This road can not be traveled quickly. Shortcuts tend to lead away from the road. Soloing is about expression and creating music in real time, not adherance to a prescribed routine that produces predictable results. Before I could play a solos that successfully expressed what I wanted to expresss I had to start out simply and slowly and there was a measure of trial and error involved. Actually, many, many measures of trial and error. :)

Just for the fun of it try playing a solo over an entire song using just quarter notes and half notes. There is nowhere to hide if something goes wrong at that pace. I use this as an exercise from time to time. I find that it really helps me to concentrate on being expressive.

Give me your best shot, Wall Button.

Just for the fun of it try playing a solo over an entire song using just quarter notes and half notes.
Doesn't Charlie Haden get paid for that? :) OK, OK, Hadenophiles, just joking.

How Diddy Do That?: Actually, there may be some fundamental differences between the approaches of me and the right honnable gentleman from the great state of Georgia, even though we finish with the same tag line. But maybe not.

Nah... for me it's about coming at it with the right intention. I needed to figure out more what's the right "end". I can find my own "means" and adopt those that other come up with. Yes I have done something similar to what you mentioned about soloing slowly: I was told to do it without minding the rhythm and paying more attention to the phrasing but it's still a very similar idea. But that is just a means to getting to the goal of developing strong improv skills. A lot of times teachers just give you assignments, and they DON'T tell you where they're supposed to lead. Not to mention that sometimes as students, you just don't get it!

I'm glad that my teach goes by the idea that he may teach me the same thing over and over, but each time I am at a different level and my understanding is or will become deeper.

However, not everyone wants to improvise at the level sugested here and put it to people in terms of effort, many would be happy with the tricks and licks and to do an odd convincing-ish solo...

That may be true, but I have no interest in faking it. I needed help in sorting the wheat from the chaff. I've done my share of tricks 'n licks and imo frankly it's lead me nowhere except to the understand that I don't want to take any more shortcuts, because they've all been just distractions. I'm willing to work at it until these concepts become natural to me. I don't mind shedding for the next 2 years... but it's good to hear the teach too me that I can probably start gigging after that if I keep up what I'm doing now.

Teachers can give out confusing messages which then further confuse learners when they hear a fully fledged musician say something like - I just play what I feel - which then gets interpreted as all these unwelcome exercises aren't necesary.

I totally agree on this. Which is why I was voicing my frustration in an earlier post. On top of that, students (likemyself) get caught between all kinds of different methods and you just get plain lost and you forget why you're playing in the first place after a while.

Whats this gotta do with Chet BTW?

That Chet probably was a person who went after playing "what he heard", and that he didn't rely on the various methods (like scales/licks/theory) to become who he is musically. And that some of us want to clear away all of these various methods as well, and get to the heart of the matter: playing what we hear in a similar way that Chet may have.

Doesn't Charlie Haden get paid for that? :) OK, OK, Hadenophiles, just joking.

Except he doesn't rush as much as Charlie Haden.

TEEN CRUMPETS - all i know is what I know. My teacher has a number of students that come to him without having ANY experience playing and he has them working on the same approaches that he has me working on. And gets students improvising in a meaningful and communicative way. Yes, it's all one on one. Because he feels that trying to become an improvisor in a class-type situation is counter productive. I know that it's comforting to hear that yes, you CAN get through the scary forest by going that way. But no matter how DISCOMFORTING it is to hear, I've got to continue to say "No, that's a dead end."

how about sugesting to the class that they tackle things on the basis of the last very impressive post (no sarchasm at all here) by Ed. In my informed opinion, most students at hese classes would say it is not acheivable.

I would have to disagree. Joe has some exercises that are long term types of approaches that would be very easy to work on with students over the course of a 2 to 3 week "camp" type thing. One of my trips back to AugustaGA I was invited to come play for the jazz ensemble and do a little clinic. The band leader was a buddy of mine who comes from the chord/scale school and wanted me to talk to them about using the Dorian scale over minor chords. So I said to them all the stuff I say here. I don't apoproach soloing that way, I'm not trying to pick notes off a list I want to make some kind of sense, tell a story. And then we did one of Joe's little exercises. And it had an immediate affect on the way they were soloing. So yes, I think this approach would be VERY favorably received by students. You aren't being given the choice of several different phrases of gibberish to choose from, you start playing in a way that has more meaning. And when they can UNDERSTAND what they are doing, HEAR how what they play is relating to the other musicians in a musical way, it becomes a much more rewarding experience.

And so you need some tricks and licks, the odd plan in the knowledge that your band ain't that advanced. Surely you can have no problem with that?
First of all - the shed is the shed and the gig is the gig. When I last did this sort of class situation it was with Charlie Haden and he kind of DEMANDED that you not deal with "tricks and licks". Because, to him and me and SO many others, that's NOT what playing jazz is about. And it doesn't matter what level you're at, you should always be striving to create a true and personal and immediate statement. When you're on the stand, you do whatever it is you have to do to get through the gig. But if your best approach is to work a bunch of **** out before hand or rely on plug and play, maybe gigging shouldn't be your immediate goal. maybe you should be sessioning and really working on getting stuff out of your head and into the air and THEN go get gigs. SAM'L had a thread about this (ALL ABOUT THE WASHINGTONS), people go out to hear "jazz" and are confronted with folks who have a somewhat less than informed approach - reading tunes, blowing the chord/scales they've learned, playing with the best of intentions but without intent - and decide that they "don't really like jazz".


However, not everyone wants to improvise at the level sugested here and put it to people in terms of effort, many would be happy with the tricks and licks and to do an odd convincing-ish solo. Nobody says you have to want it. What I am saying is that if you DO want it, this is the work that will get you the skill sets to do so. This is the level that is expected of an improvisor. Period. No court of appeals. You either do or you don't. And there's no real moral judgement here, people who decide that they want to really paly this music aren't necessarily better than people who just want to know enough to play a few tunes with their blokes on the weekend. (ASIDE- although being a person with the commitment to put a lot of hard work into an endeavor that is ultimately "inner directed" does tend to speak pretty highly of a person. Not many people would work so hard for so little material gain.) And again, the only people that solo would "convince" would be people who weren't listening very hard.


Look, if it were easy, everybody would do it.

DONO and I agree to disagree. For instance, I disagree that I can outplay him.

Nah... for me it's about coming at it with the right intention. I needed to figure out more what's the right "end". I can find my own "means" and adopt those that other come up with.
HoDiddley
This is almost the language of the Alexander Technique. Before I go further, do you have any experience with it?

ON A BENDER - play through a tune improvising in quarter notes. Quarter notes.

Only a guitar player would think that was challenging :)

HoDiddley
This is almost the language of the Alexander Technique. Before I go further, do you have any experience with it?

Hmm... not sure of what you mean by AT. I've read your past posts about it but don't neccessarily understand where you're coming from at a conceptual level. You'll have to hip me to it.

The reason why I write like this is from 3 years of hanging out too often with my Aikido Sensei. But I've seen this kind of things with many different types of things... dance, music, martial arts, yoga, etc. To me, AT sounds like another one of those great disciplines that emphasize similar basic truths. Many paths up the same mountain...

Doesn't Charlie Haden get paid for that? :) OK, OK, Hadenophiles, just joking.
Damn, thanks, Don, I love blowing iced tea out through my nostrils. Anybody got some paper towels?

ON A BENDER - play through a tune improvising in quarter notes. Quarter notes.

Only a guitar player would think that was challenging :)

Spelling the word quarter was the real challenge. :)

Teachers can give out confusing messages which then further confuse learners when they hear a fully fledged musician say something like - I just play what I feel - which then gets interpreted as all these unwelcome exercises aren't necesary.

A good teacher would make it clear how he/she was able execute their "feelings" as musical notes on an instrument, and a good student would ask questions until it started to become clear what was going on. I actually teach what I do, and I basically "play what I feel". I teach students that the mental/technical work is for the practice room, and that the performance is the time to sing through your axe. The time you put in working on the former facilitates the latter. But without putting in the time to make it real, all of the mental stuff is just smalltalk, and about as valuable.


Now I don't have knowledge of the courses and workshops in the US - but I do get a picture of where the absent Bruce was comming from, not that I agreed with him. Given Chris has just done a Jazz camp and is an educator, I'd be very interested to hear his comments - especially how he tackles courses to amateurs. Do these issues arise stateside?



I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Could you rephrase the question?

Good replies guys - thanks :hyper:

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Could you rephrase the question?

I had in mind the situation where people go to the same jazz workshops year after year after year re-learning the same things but never doing the background to progress. It becomes a way of life. These guys are often jazz fans who get into the atittude that they could never possibly have anything to say musically because that is the realm of their heros. And there is a conspiracy of silence, whereby they don't get told they're wasting the're time and they pretend to learn something new. No-one turns down a payer in the battle to keep classes viable. Your reply tells me you're not going to let this happen - as I thought you would. On reflection I'm not sure I had much of a question.

But I noted on one summer school that student expectations are changing - that they expect support and encouragement - not to be told what it takes. One top musician got reported for saying as much to those that didn't want to hear it. (He does Aebersold's when held in the UK but I can't afford these so it was elsewhere)

Musicians can be a variable bunch on summer schools, camps as you call them, too. Many do it to make a little of the side. Some hold all their students in contemp (ok - some are not there to be serious about music) some tell it like it is and get flak for it, some get everyone to play and be jolly - entertaining and hopefully inspiring but useful? - well I supose there is only so much you can do in a week.

There is only so much you can say - as demonstrated in Foghorns posts and spot the repetition repetition repetition. But there is endless debate about theory and chords etc. and lots of different ways to put it. This is where the debate, the classes and etc go whereas what everyone needs is to work on the basics - Becuase of that, I guess Ed's tutor might just be on the money - that one-to-one is where this is sorted out, not in groups.

I'm not an apologist for the absent poster - but a world that can generate the missing posts is quite familiar to me. Diddy sugests it may not just all be a British thing but since jazz ed. is something we got late to, and the music teaching establishment do not have a long track record, perhaps it is. I went to a workshop that the previous weeks was teaching licks and yesterday was about what triads you could play over a 7 chord - so just having decided to leave alone I wanted to explain how all this comes about.

I'm pleased to see Ed has decided (well he took the effort to type a long reply - thanks) that its not all a monumental waste of time. Frustrating trash has been posted here and I'm no angel :eek: either - but the results have been very worth-while - for me at least.

BTW guys, I've just treated myself to the outrageously expensive (well I thought so) Tascam CD BT1 cd player, that slows the cd down but keeps the pitch the same and you can change key of the replay too. It also enhances the bass. It might be designed with planks in mind but to an aid to acheiving improvising heaven using the lessons taught here I'm impressed. Just on my way home to try it with the bass now. (And please don't tell me you can get cheaper software that does this - I know you can but this is more convenient and I ain't gotta pc at the mo). I'll start a thread on how I get on with the thing later.

This bass player Ralph Hamperian told me a funny story. He used to do the Aebersold jazz camps and was on one with Joe Henderson (who apparently used to do them too) and Joe wasn't really a guy to tear somebody a new one. Plus this was pre Marsalis, so you didn't have everybody and his brother thinking you could make a living being a jazz musicians and what few people showed up did it cause they loved the music. Joe would offer suggestions about direction, things to listen to, things to work on, but every once in awhile he would hit somebody that just wasn't making it. And almost invariably Joe would finally just say "Yeah, man!" and move on. But they had one fella in an ensemble who was more than just not making it, and Ralph was trying to keep from busting out as Joe was struggling with what to say with minute stretching into minute. Finally Joe says "Yeah, man! Not happening!"

The class with Charlie was good - there were 8 bassists, a drummer a couple of tenor players, a guitar player and a piano player (or two? it was a while ago). So it was structured in a similar way to these camps you guys are talking about. And Charlie was adamant that it wasn't about him teaching us how to play. The best he could do (as he said) was to try to get us to listen -to ourselves, to each other. And to try to get to the music that each of us had within us. But we couldn't be thinking about chords and scales and licks and all of that. That stuff was an OBSTRUCTION to the music. So in a way it was great, because he said some real true stuff, stuff that you could think about for a long time, he made you re think what you wanted to do as a musician. But in another way it was a drag, because after 3 weeks my playing was essentially unaffected. And you want to come away with a Concrete Thing, right?

Well you can't, it don't work that way. One on one, slow and steady, focused, consistent, progressive.

I'm not an apologist for the absent poster - but a world that can generate the missing posts is quite familiar to me. Diddy sugests it may not just all be a British thing but since jazz ed. is something we got late to, and the music teaching establishment do not have a long track record, perhaps it is.


If I understand you correctly I'll say this...

IMO, it's not a British thing... it's not even neccessarily a jazz thing. It's human nature I think. I think we all like instant gratification and we'll look for the shortest way to get to satisfaction in every situation. You'll see it in school, yoga, careers, life, etc.

We want to know what the quickest and least painful way/approach/technique/method to mastery, but those who are wise know that the quickest way usually isn't the quickest at all in the long run.

I had in mind the situation where people go to the same jazz workshops year after year after year re-learning the same things but never doing the background to progress. It becomes a way of life. These guys are often jazz fans who get into the atittude that they could never possibly have anything to say musically because that is the realm of their heros. And there is a conspiracy of silence, whereby they don't get told they're wasting the're time and they pretend to learn something new. No-one turns down a payer in the battle to keep classes viable. Your reply tells me you're not going to let this happen - as I thought you would. On reflection I'm not sure I had much of a question.

I think you have to be careful not to paint with too broad a brush in comments like these. At the Aebersold camps, you can find students and teachers of all types, and of all levels of ability. The great thing about Jamey is that even though he's very rigid about some things, and has very strong personal beliefs about what he thinks people need to hear, he also understands that everybody is different...and as a teacher, if he likes your playing, he doesn't seem to mind if you teach your own way, since that is obviously what got you to where you are. Many times I find myself teaching paths in the approach to the music that directly contradict what he says, or what other highly regarded camp faculty teach - but it's seems to be fine with him. I guess he figures it's good for the students to be exposed to all kinds of different approaches.

Some classes I teach, like the voicings classes and the bass master classes, are all nuts-and-bolts stuff, basically methods and systems for getting closer to the "normal" starting points for whatever particular instrument it is...how to build standard voicings with guide tones and color tones, how to build altered dominant chords, how to build basic bass lines, how to get a bigger sound out of the instrument, etc.

In the combos, for me it's all about learning to turn a group of people who just met into a group with a common goal. Nobody is gonna become a remarkably better soloist in one week, but they can learn a hell of a lot about being a better team player, accompanist, and listener. If, by the end of the week, I end up with a group that is trying to listen to each other, respect each other's musical space, and interact (even if only going through the motions of interaction at first), I figure it's been a good week. As far as soloing, I try to encourage people to worry less about note choices and focus more on gesture and rhythmic interplay. The notes are the easy part, but learning to hear them takes a long time. In the meantime, there are a lot of musical aspects which can be worked on with dramatic results. It's also important for folks to get that rush of energy that comes from a group playing together and reacting together. They'll remember that a hell of a lot longer than some hip lick.

But I noted on one summer school that student expectations are changing - that they expect support and encouragement - not to be told what it takes. One top musician got reported for saying as much to those that didn't want to hear it. (He does Aebersold's when held in the UK but I can't afford these so it was elsewhere)

I'm not sure I see these two things as being at all mutually exclusive. Why can't you give "support and encouragement" while "telling what it takes"? Most of the students I see at the camps are smart enough to be able to see what's what, and who can play, and who is just starting out. Most of them just want to get better. When you're playing for Rufus Reid and Lynn Seaton, you'd have to be pretty dense to think that they don't know how well (or not) you play, or not to notice how far below their level your own playing is. But the point is, the faculty are there to inspire, and I think for the most part, the evening concerts are a great example of that. Hell, whenever Rufus plays, I'm right there sitting crosslegged on the floor right in front of the stage watching everything that goes on, just like the students. Most nights, most of the students leave the concerts pretty fired up about somebody or other, and that's what it's really all about.

I supose there is only so much you can do in a week.


True dat. :)

I would say that (the above quote) isn't even really what's going on. Herbie isn't playing a ii V, he's playing a song and following a line that he's hearing that hangs off the harmony and melody of that song. he's not painting a straight line and then another that intersects the first at such and such an angle, he's not even painting a picture based on principles of dynamic support and structure. he's got a picture of a house in his head and he is putting that on canvas. Chord/scales, function, whatever - it's just NOT a consideration.

What do you HEAR?
WHAT do you hear?
Play that!

I'll certainly agree with you there, Ed (very nicely put, by the way). When I typed that thing about 2-5-1, I was actually thinking more about chord voicings than a solo line, although, admittedly, that was not clear from what I said, or the context I said it in.

Although, of course, the same is true (albeit possibly to a lesser extent - at least during the head or while comping behind a solo) of chord voicings. One hears progressions in the same way one hears a solo line. During the first time through the head, for example, you may wanna stick to the chords as they're written/agreed.

You didn't have to pause and hunt for the words to respond to my post, you responded with the vocabulary that was there at your disposal, ingrained. You didn't respond with a bunch of words that didn't mean anything, you reponded with the words most immediately "at hand" that communicated the intent and the inquiry that you wanted.

What is going to constrain your ability to improvise is -trying, thinking, plugging in notes from a chord/scale, that kind of thing. You can't "taint" your subconscious knowledge, it just is. That's what's available to you as an improvisor (or conversationalist). Or, more precisely, what you have worked on in the shed over and over becomes your "subconscious" knowledge, your working vocabulary. And if what I have said, over and over, since I were a wee bairn was "prolly" instead of "probably", that's what comes out in the free exchange of ideas. Saying"probably" causes an interrupt, I have to stop flow and consciously examine what is going to come out of my mouth. And by that point the drummer is packing up.

I'm not talking about instinct, I'm talking about conveying intent. And playing jazz, improvising in the moment is all about freedom. If you hear it with clarity, can identify what you are hearing and get that out into the air by playing it on your instrument, ANYTHING THAT YOU HEAR IN CONTEXT is available.

This is the problem with message boards, that what we type is what everyone gets, and it's up to the reader to fill in any blanks and draw out any intent from them. Well, back to the fun now that this ride is back on line!

If improvisation in jazz is all about freedom, what's with having to have intentions behind what one plays and having to hear something in context while improvising in the moment?

If improvisation in jazz is all about freedom, what's with having to have intentions behind what one plays and having to hear something in context while improvising in the moment?


The implied "freedom" is a freedom from predetermined ideas being "plugged in". If I'm understanding our dear PUKESPRAY correctly, the idea is that what you play be determined by what your inner ear or voice is hearing and singing at the precise moment in time that the improvisation is taking place. The inner ear would be hearing all of the sonic minutiae created by the particular players playing the particular instruments at that moment in their lives, each influenced by the other, and hopefully acting as a whole that is far greater than the sum of its parts. These admittedly ideal conditions are snapshots in time, like snowflakes: since no two are ever exactly alike, the reactions to these moments should never be exactly the same. It's the freedom to be in the moment, and to let it lead you wherever the combination of your voice and the interplay with other players makes you "feel" like going. It's what Kenny Werner calls, "Getting out of the way and letting the music happen". It's not voodoo, but it does require faith. That, and lots of practice.

If you exercise the freedom to land hard on a B natural every time a C7 chord appears nobody is going to arrest you but you probably won't get called back by the leader because it isn't going to sound good. This thread started with a discussion of whether a knowledge of theory is needed in order to improvise effectively and numerous examples have been given of people that played beautifully without an extensive knowledge of theory. But the only reason that these names are well known is because they are effective players, capable of improvising musically pleasing (and interesting) statements on the fly.

There is no magic set of rules that will allow you "improvise" by playing a standardized response to a set of changes. If you try to do this it will sound predictable and formulaic. A well-known soprano sax player comes to mind. OTOH if you understand the theory you will have a heads-up on why some notes will not fit in a given situation. Some folks, like Chet Baker or Django Reinhardt are able to do this without a deep knowledge of theory because they have learned to take it straight from the heart to the instrument. These people naturally avoid notes that don't fit well in a particular situation because they are thinking of what sounds good. Even musicians that play well outside of the changes or are very angular are still maintaining a relationship to the rules however tangential. It's just as hard, if not harder, to play consistently outside of the changes, as it is to play consistently inside them.

The "rules" are not a formula for improvisation. They explain why something might fit or not but they do not teach us how to improvise. That must come from within.

The implied "freedom" is a freedom from predetermined ideas being "plugged in". If I'm understanding our dear PUKESPRAY correctly, the idea is that what you play be determined by what your inner ear or voice is hearing and singing at the precise moment in time that the improvisation is taking place. The inner ear would be hearing all of the sonic minutiae created by the particular players playing the particular instruments at that moment in their lives, each influenced by the other, and hopefully acting as a whole that is far greater than the sum of its parts. These admittedly ideal conditions are snapshots in time, like snowflakes: since no two are ever exactly alike, the reactions to these moments should never be exactly the same. It's the freedom to be in the moment, and to let it lead you wherever the combination of your voice and the interplay with other players makes you "feel" like going. It's what Kenny Werner calls, "Getting out of the way and letting the music happen". It's not voodoo, but it does require faith. That, and lots of practice.

Excellently put - I particularly like the snowflake analogy. Both you and FAUX-PAS seem to have a way of explaining these things very clearly.

Well for the most part in most situations amongst the lesser jazzerati it isn't - I've got a darn good idea exactly what is going to come out of my colleagues (mores the pity). You are all talking about acheiving advanced levels of improvising but what a lot of questions arising out of advice given at various courses and classes is of the nature of "try to play this here and here" and "when you see (sic) a 7 chord try this". This is about contructing solos, and the many tools you can use.

In fact, you can come away from these classes with so many items to practise that you become overwhelmed and have no clear structure by which you can develop. Its a long road and you don't get no-where by meandering.

I question the jazz-class teacher ethos - tools are fine, how about sugesting to the class that they tackle things on the basis of the last very impressive post (no sarchasm at all here) by Ed. In my informed opinion, most students at hese classes would say it is not acheivable. I guess teachers don't want to frighten the horses in the battle to keep viable numbers up. Alternatively, you get the asociated board exams where the examiner listens for a quote, use of a certain scale at certain points and sometimes students turn up playing the same solo as eachother.

Sometimes its about instant results and other times measurable results - and publicity for things such as Aebersold together with the whole panoply of jazz teaching to amateurs has to take some of the blame. Its the conflation of improvising and soloing. What in effect get taught, lapped up, and appreciated and give measurable quick results are scales, tricks and licks that require intellectual thought whilst playing and the conceit that you will improvise if you get to know these thoroughly.

However, not everyone wants to improvise at the level sugested here and put it to people in terms of effort, many would be happy with the tricks and licks and to do an odd convincing-ish solo.

Even those that are determined to follow the path to enlightenment are thrust into situations where they are asked and indeed want to solo but are not in a position to wholly improvise. And so you need some tricks and licks, the odd plan in the knowledge that your band ain't that advanced. Surely you can have no problem with that :confused: .

Teachers can give out confusing messages which then further confuse learners when they hear a fully fledged musician say something like - I just play what I feel - which then gets interpreted as all these unwelcome exercises aren't necesary. Or as was inferred by me (I may be wrong), you get a teacher noting Chet not using a panoply of tools that are currently taught and implying its to do with learning by ear.

What is needed is clarity of aims and objectives being put straight and directly. No-one has to frighten people off - just point out that at such a level all you are likely to acheive is x. Its like singing up for an Open Univeristiy course - they tell you from the outset the likely work need to go in (OK - it always varies with talent but ...).:

I gotta say Mr. Mike makes some good points here. For the sake of argument, what's wrong with getting beginner students some basic "plug-and-play" type concepts, as long as it's emphasized and reemphasized that this is a short-term solution, to get them up and running. And as long as the other long-term concepts are introduced, so the student knows how to begin the quest for more advanced levels, when the time comes.

I wonder if it is even possible to achieve universally accepted methods of teaching jazz, since the music is by nature one that encourages and thrives on individualism. One has to admit, the field of jazz education is relatively young, and I believe still finding it's way.

There are all sorts of books, magazine articles, and other instructional materials claiming to "teach improv". When I was active as a teacher I spent a lot of time undoing the damage that was caused by other players and learning sources of questionable credibility.

Classes that teach proper English are pretty much a necessity, slang can usually be learned without formal instruction.

...If I'm understanding our dear PUKESPRAY correctly, the idea is that what you play be determined by what your inner ear or voice is hearing and singing at the precise moment in time that the improvisation is taking place...It's what Kenny Werner calls, "Getting out of the way and letting the music happen". It's not voodoo, but it does require faith. That, and lots of practice.

I like what Kenny Werner says, but I would say that if one is not bothering to allow what one plays with the direction of one's inner ear or voice at the time one is playing at all (whether the lines are conceived before the song is performed or not), then one is not playing music, period. How can my hands know what to do to play the note I want them to speak on my behalf if I have no clue what I'm intending to play with my inner ear or voice to begin with?

I like what Kenny Werner says, but I would say that if one is not bothering to allow what one plays with the direction of one's inner ear or voice at the time one is playing at all (whether the lines are conceived before the song is performed or not), then one is not playing music, period.

I may be in an exceptionally dense state at the moment, but I have no idea what this statement means as stated. Could you simplify it for an old addled jazzer and try again?


How can my hands know what to do to play the note I want them to speak on my behalf if I have no clue what I'm intending to play with my inner ear or voice to begin with?

The point of all of this is that now is the time (no pun intended) to begin to focus more on developing this inner ear rather than worrying about what your hands are doing. Start singing over changes. What sounds good? What sounds bad? Try singing a great solo by another player. When you've got it in your ear to the point where you can sing it, try taking it to your instrument and find where it lies. By doing this, you'll be working on the connection between your ear and your hands. Before long, you'll know what to practice with your hands because it will be the types of things that you have trouble executing from your "sung" lines. But until your inner ear is hearing something, practicing with your hands is treading water at best.

Until you'r inner ear is hearing something, practicing with your hands is treading water at best.

You realize that talk like this could force a whole lot of improv-book writers to find real jobs. :)

There are all sorts of books, magazine articles, and other instructional materials claiming to "teach improv". When I was active as a teacher I spent a lot of time undoing the damage that was caused by other players and learning sources of questionable credibility.

Classes that teach proper English are pretty much a necessity, slang can usually be learned without formal instruction.
Could you elaborate on how this statement relates to my post (if it was in response to it), this thread, and jazz music in general? I'm just not sure what analogy you are drawing with the proper English / slang statement.

BTW, have you met Nnick Lloyd yetT?

Well as Mike Trumpton is lamenting my absence and trying to talk for me ....

I think you have to be careful not to paint with too broad a brush in comments like these. At the Aebersold camps, you can find students and teachers of all types, and of all levels of ability. The great thing about Jamey is that even though he's very rigid about some things, and has very strong personal beliefs about what he thinks people need to hear, he also understands that everybody is different...and as a teacher, if he likes your playing, he doesn't seem to mind if you teach your own way, since that is obviously what got you to where you are. Many times I find myself teaching paths in the approach to the music that directly contradict what he says, or what other highly regarded camp faculty teach - but it's seems to be fine with him. I guess he figures it's good for the students to be exposed to all kinds of different approaches.

Some classes I teach, like the voicings classes and the bass master classes, are all nuts-and-bolts stuff, basically methods and systems for getting closer to the "normal" starting points for whatever particular instrument it is...how to build standard voicings with guide tones and color tones, how to build altered dominant chords, how to build basic bass lines, how to get a bigger sound out of the instrument, etc.

In the combos, for me it's all about learning to turn a group of people who just met into a group with a common goal. Nobody is gonna become a remarkably better soloist in one week, but they can learn a hell of a lot about being a better team player, accompanist, and listener. If, by the end of the week, I end up with a group that is trying to listen to each other, respect each other's musical space, and interact (even if only going through the motions of interaction at first), I figure it's been a good week. As far as soloing, I try to encourage people to worry less about note choices and focus more on gesture and rhythmic interplay. The notes are the easy part, but learning to hear them takes a long time. In the meantime, there are a lot of musical aspects which can be worked on with dramatic results. It's also important for folks to get that rush of energy that comes from a group playing together and reacting together. They'll remember that a hell of a lot longer than some hip lick.


Chris - this is exactly my experience of these "camps" - it's great to meet some new people and work with a tutor on how you play together - that's what I really enjoy. So I have had weeks with some great musicians explaining how you get a band to work together - so you may not have hard of him, but Stan Sulzmann was a fantastic inspiration to me and he made loads of comments about my playing which I bear in mind now all the time - although not a word was spoken about music theory all week - it was all about getting the group together, listening to each other and as you say getting that energy which stays with you and inspires you to try to do this kind of stuff all of the rest of the year!

I think it's a no -brainer, which I realised, many years ago - within a few weeks of starting Jazz classes, that theory is for shedding on your own at home and not what use when you get together with other people!!

So - on another year, we worked with Jason Yarde and not a page of sheet music was used or any reference to theory mentioned. It was about the group dynamic and we composed several pieces by free improvisation and worked on 'spontaneous composition' - it was a great week and very interesting..


I'm not sure I see these two things as being at all mutually exclusive. Why can't you give "support and encouragement" while "telling what it takes"? Most of the students I see at the camps are smart enough to be able to see what's what, and who can play, and who is just starting out. Most of them just want to get better. When you're playing for Rufus Reid and Lynn Seaton, you'd have to be pretty dense to think that they don't know how well (or not) you play, or not to notice how far below their level your own playing is.



Yes - with the example that I mentioned first of a week with Stan Sulzmann - he was telling me how bad I was in no uncertain terms - but he gave me loads of tips and it will always stay with me - him putting his arm around my shoulder and telling me not to take it personally!! ;)

But he made me think from his point of view - as a soloist (he's a sax/flute player) and of playing something that would inspire him and make him want to play a better solo - mostly in terms of rythmic impetus - but anyway, that experience stays with me in a way that transcends any words here, or in books!

So each year - there have been points where "I got my arse kicked" or rather I found something I couldn't do/identified weaknesses in my playing. So this gives me somthing to work on all year and I determine that I won't fall down on that count next time - but there is always something else ...


But the point is, the faculty are there to inspire, and I think for the most part, the evening concerts are a great example of that. Hell, whenever Rufus plays, I'm right there sitting crosslegged on the floor right in front of the stage watching everything that goes on, just like the students. Most nights, most of the students leave the concerts pretty fired up about somebody or other, and that's what it's really all about.

True dat. :)


That's exactly right - so I'm off to "camp" in two weeks and am really looking forward to being inspired by the music that gets played each evening - I just love seeing all those pros come together and make wonderful music "out of nothing" - I am also inspired by the other students and often think - wow I must try that, play that etc.

Although I go each year, thinking I want to play - by the end of the week I 'm thinking wow, I just want to watch and listen!! ;)

This bass player Ralph Hamperian told me a funny story. He used to do the Aebersold jazz camps and was on one with Joe Henderson (who apparently used to do them too) and Joe wasn't really a guy to tear somebody a new one. Plus this was pre Marsalis, so you didn't have everybody and his brother thinking you could make a living being a jazz musicians and what few people showed up did it cause they loved the music. Joe would offer suggestions about direction, things to listen to, things to work on, but every once in awhile he would hit somebody that just wasn't making it. And almost invariably Joe would finally just say "Yeah, man!" and move on. But they had one fella in an ensemble who was more than just not making it, and Ralph was trying to keep from busting out as Joe was struggling with what to say with minute stretching into minute. Finally Joe says "Yeah, man! Not happening!"




On the Summerschool, I attend - one of the current tutors mentioned the "old days" when a well-known Scottish tenor player used to "assess" all the sax players, by getting them to stand in a line.

So - apparently one year he went along the line, looking very dour and said : "all you guys are classed as beginners, apart from you (the tutor in question) .......long pause...... you're intermediate!! ;)



The class with Charlie was good - there were 8 bassists, a drummer a couple of tenor players, a guitar player and a piano player (or two? it was a while ago). So it was structured in a similar way to these camps you guys are talking about....

The 'camp' I go to is very much focused on "small band" work and they set it up with about 14 or 15 groups that are structured like real bands - so each group has 2 or 3 horns, piano/guitar, bass and drums that stay together all week and work on playing as unit (with one tutor)and give several performances in the nightly "Jazz Club"

There are other classes during the week - many optional - , regular Jam sesssion etc. plus many listening things involving the tutors - but it's based around this idea of playing in a small group.

But until your inner ear is hearing something, practicing with your hands is treading water at best.

Yes, we're near the same page. From my first lesson, I was trained to hear the lines I played with my inner ear so that I knew what my hands were supposed to do.

The "treading water" analogy is nice. For me, though, I'd say that if the inner ear isn't working while the hands are moving, one isn't playing the bass at all. Discussing the importance of one's inner ear and its use for improvisation is fine, but it should be used no matter what one is playing (or practicing, for that matter). It's the same thing as when I'm typing on this message board - I'm speaking the words in my mind as I type to let my fingers know what keys to press, whether it's dictation or I'm having a conversation.

And here's where I guess I come back to the source of this thread - where do conversation and dictation go their separate ways? For me, it's really a non-issue, because it drives towards motivation and I'm more interested in results. When I'm delivering the results I want, maybe I'll get bored and start picking at motivation and be able to offer words such as pure improvisation.

For those of us lucky enough to be near Berkeley, CA, we have a place called the Jazzschool in which players can take ensemble courses over a 10 week period and learn from established players. Some emsembles are lead by Wayne Wallce, Eddie Marshall, and Seward McCain among others. Last year I took a ensemble class called "Tunes in 12 Keys" taught by my current bass teacher, Glenn Richman.

Among other things, I remember Glenn saying something on the order that "you start playing music when you stop looking at the music and going by your ear." And each of us that was in the class took our turns experiencing these things.

Overall I think we all noticed that "treading water" always ended up sounding really dead and mechanical to everyone including the less advanced students. If one of us stared at our music and tried to follow, it wouldn't be so mechanical but it still was rather boring or would totally give you the feeling that we were struggling. And finally, the weirdest/best experiences was going to class ill-prepared. (remember we have to learn tunes and play them in all 12 keys - 1 song per week in 6 or all 12 key signatures). i.e. you only practiced 4 out of the 12 keys or didn't even play the song once because you didn't have the time that week.

The amazing this was that if you went into a song "blind" and trusted your instincts to not even look at the sheet music and go totally by ear.... that your solo would briefly "take flight". It did feel like learning to fly and as a fledgling, we all had brief episodes of being lifted into the air (it was a liberating and amazing feeling) but came screeching to a halt after a while. But I think once we experience doing this kind of thing, we weren't so scared to do it again. I think it was a confidence builder for me.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=585&e=2&u=/nm/20040714/sc_nm/health_blindness_dc

I mean, just think of Art Tatum. It's always astonishing. Wow!

Heck, do you even think that Art Tatum knew his theory through and through? The guy can't even read sheet music obviously.

Heck, do you even think that Art Tatum knew his theory through and through? The guy can't even read sheet music obviously.
You can't be saying that a blind person can never know something because he can't read it, can you? You mean that George Shearing doesn't "know" music theory?

I have had the experience -- for about a year -- of playing with a quite young blind kid who is one of these "hearing virtuosos". His ability to hear things -- to hear fine, fine detail amidst a lot of other stuff -- will absolutely blow you away. I've never come across better ears. His ability to hear and to play music is equally impressive.

With all that talent -- mostly still quite raw and undeveloped, he's off to university and jazz school in the fall -- he's an interesting example of how someone can benefit by knowing some theory. You can play him any tune, any old tune from the 30's or something equally likely he's never heard, and he'll be with you from the start; by the second chorus he's pretty much got it; by the third he'll be scaring you a bit.

But it's all his natural ear at work. It's raw and unrefined. The guy can use some exposure to OTHER ways of hearing and thinking about music.

The thing that's interesting is watching him apply himself to jazz, which is mostly new to him. He does all the above stuff well, but I absolutely know that once he gets some disciplined learning and broadened knowledge behind him, he'll start to hear things that he simply doesn't hear now. They don't exist for him at this time. He is the proverbial farm boy who simply has not yet seen Paree....

Anyone familiar with A Mixture of Frailties, by the Canadian author Roberston Davies? It's dated and old-fogeyish by now, dating from Canada's deepest colonial days, but it contains much truth. It's about a young girl with tremendous singing talent. She comes from a small, provincial Canadian backwoods town. The novel is literally about her growth as a musician, about what happens to her as she gets more local exposure and when she eventually gets over to England for "real" musical training. Davies -- though an arch Tory who has a natural love for almost all things traditional -- is extremely perceptive about the artist's journey and the necessity of exposure. For him, there is no diamond that can't benefit from cutting and polishing and being placed amidst other diamonds. I can't say I can go all the way with him on that, it's way too old school, but there is much truth in it.

It's not that you need theory to be a good musical artist; it's that almost all of us need to take our talent outside ourselves for it to really start to gain its own legs.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=585&e=2&u=/nm/20040714/sc_nm/health_blindness_dc

I mean, just think of Art Tatum. It's always astonishing. Wow!

Heck, do you even think that Art Tatum knew his theory through and through? The guy can't even read sheet music obviously.

From the web
ART TATUM
Despite seriously impaired vision (he was blind in one eye and had only partial sight in the other), Art Tatum received some formal piano training as a teenager at the Toledo School of Music and learned to read sheet music with the aid of glasses and by the Braille method.
LENNIE TRISTANO
Tristano was stricken permanently blind as an infant. He first studied music with his mother, an avocational pianist and opera singer. From 1928-38, he attended a school for the blind in Chicago, where he learned music theory and developed proficiency on several wind instruments. Later, he attended Chicago's American Conservatory of Music, from which he received a bachelor's degree in 1943.

I'm a little more fascinated with "deaf" musicians - Jimmy Raney for instance who had such great time and such an intuitive sense of where the note he was hearing was on his instrument, that he would do gigs during the periods when he couldn't hear at all (he had some weird kind of inner ear problem, his hearing would come and go. It was operable, but he never wanted to risk it because, if it were NOT successful, he would have lost his hearing permanently.) Or Beethoven, not only hearing how a nascent composition would sound on piano, but being able to orchestrate it so effectively.

Well I stand corrected then! My bad!

I will now proceed to eat my shoe.

Kee-rist, I'm playing with a deaf guy too! He's not actually deaf, but he too has suffered some kind of weird problem where the hearing comes and goes (mostly going, these days.)

He's played tenor sax for decades. He's having a tough time with the deaf thing, though, in performance. Playing in tune is a challenge, hearing bass notes (which is his reference for what's happening harmonically) is really tough for him.

It's tragic, actually. The guy used to be able to excite an audience and a dance crowd with one of his solos; now his confidence is shaken, he never knows exactly what's gonna turn up when it's his turn to solo...

I think there's plenty of music in his brain, music that he hears, but his particular axe requires him to be able to hear well while playing and that's where the trouble comes.

Just put on some headphones, turn up your favorite vocal tune loud enough so that you can't hear yourself, and then record yourself singing along with it.

I've worked with a drummer who had his head up his a$$. Does that count?

Jeez guys, maybe we should start a new thread so you guys can let it all out. :)

We can title it:
"Is less bitching more?!?"
"Is more bitching less?"
"My drummer is hard (headed)"

or how about

"Chet Baker and Music Theory Ignoramuses"

I had some funny and kinda sad times playing with Red Norvo just before he lost his hearing. The only problem would be if Red would drop a beat, the rhythm section would have to flop the time around to match where Red was...We got pretty good at it....a whole section having to turn the time around together. We would laugh our asses off about it ....including Red! Marcus' and my friend Mike Buono the great drummer was on this gig too.

I had some funny and kinda sad times playing with Red Norvo just before he lost his hearing. The only problem would be if Red would drop a beat, the rhythm section would have to flop the time around to match where Red was...We got pretty good at it....a whole section having to turn the time around together. We would laugh our asses off about it ....including Red! Marcus' and my friend Mike Buono the great drummer was on this gig too.
With that section (Paul and Mike), the rest of the band wouldn't even need to show up...it'd still be swingin'.
I wish all of you guys could have the pleasure of playing with Mike Buono. He's the greatest drummer and friend you could ever wish for.

With that section (Paul and Mike), the rest of the band wouldn't even need to show up...it'd still be swingin'.
I wish all of you guys could have the pleasure of playing with Mike Buono. He's the greatest drummer and friend you could ever wish for.

But very sick...When I introduced him to Dick Hindman, who, at the time was about 375 lbs., Mike looked at me and said: " Paul, he's nowhere near as fat as you said!"
When we were working with the great Jazz singer Ethel Ennis at places like the Century Plaza Hotel In L.A., The opening tune would be just Ethel and the bass right up front...Her in her evening dress and myself in a tuxedo. I would tune up the bass, then lay it down so we could walk out into the spotlight together. God Damn Bouno would (once in a while) de-tune the bass!!!! That tune was called Lookin' At You in the key of Db!!! I'd have to just find a Db on the G string and try to not use the other strings at all, in order to get through the tune.

Sorry if i've told this story before.

He's mellowed that stuff a bit since he's moved to Maui. He still plays his a$$ off, though. You can hear him hosting a jazz show on Mana'o radio (you can stream it on the web) every Monday Night.

apparently oscar used to do that to Ray Brown and keep him talking until the curtain opened so he wouldn't check hs bass. Ray got him back by dropping a bunch of ball bearings on the strings and in the sound holes during an intermission. the first thing up when they came back was a big solo piano intro. Oscar's playing with one hand and trying to grab the bearings with the other....

Paul, if you ever get the chance - find out what kind of drums he's using and grab the same model snare. Get some drawing paper (the kind that comes on a roll) and make a "snare head" for "your" snare. Switch'em during a break or something.

Damn! You right coast guys are nasty!

Oh wait, Paul's on the left....ok, we're all nasty.

When we'd go to play gigs in L.A., we'd stay at this ancient hotel right on the beach in Santa Monica. Several ancient old folks lived there. There was something wrong with the elevator. As it would go up or down, if you would kind of shift your weight suddenly, it would stop in between floors. If there were some of these lovable olsters in there when we'd get on Mike would shift and make the thing stop in between floors. He'd open the door with that old fashioned accordian type cage door and start screaming my God we're gonna have to climb outta here up to the next floor!! The poor old folks would be peeing thier pants from fright...then he'd just shift his weight and it would start up again.
Marcus, remind him of this. He'll crack up! :eek:

Here we go with the stories...Mike Buono might have seen this one too....There was an infamous bass player in Reno named Chuck DeLora. His nick name was " Snake" because he'd stick his head in between his left arm and the basses neck and dart his tongue in and out like a snake.
He would love to expose himself...especially in dark bars.
But one time, he was working with Tony Benett with a huge beautiful band. On the "Shadow of your Smile" there's a very pretty trumpet section part; all mutes. Snake was standing behind Ralph Sharons grand piano withe the top on the little peg. The audience couldn't see this and niether could Tony. We were hangin' out back stage so we could see it as well as the trumpet section. Snake pulled out his schlong and let it hang. The bass helped hide it from anybody Snake didn't want to see it as well. Somebody got the attention of the trumpet section, and there went that beautiful muted trumpet part. Sounds that came from the section....Phew, aack, slober and gag!!!

Here we go with the stories...Mike Buono might have seen this one too....There was an infamous bass player in Reno named Chuck DeLora. His nick name was " Snake" because he'd stick his head in between his left arm and the basses neck and dart his tongue in and out like a snake.
He would love to expose himself...especially in dark bars.
But one time, he was working with Tony Benett with a huge beautiful band. On the "Shadow of your Smile" there's a very pretty trumpet section part; all mutes. Snake was standing behind Ralph Sharons grand piano withe the top on the little peg. The audience couldn't see this and niether could Tony. We were hangin' out back stage so we could see it as well as the trumpet section. Snake pulled out his schlong and let it hang. The bass helped hide it from anybody Snake didn't want to see it as well. Somebody got the attention of the trumpet section, and there went that beautiful muted trumpet part. Sounds that came from the section....Phew, aack, slober and gag!!!

PLEASE PAUL, WHEN WILL YOU RIGHT A BOOK? THE "WARBURTON TALES" ...WE NEED IT ;)

Here we go with the stories...Mike Buono might have seen this one too....There was an infamous bass player in Reno named Chuck DeLora. His nick name was " Snake" because he'd stick his head in between his left arm and the basses neck and dart his tongue in and out like a snake.
He would love to expose himself...especially in dark bars.
But one time, he was working with Tony Benett with a huge beautiful band. On the "Shadow of your Smile" there's a very pretty trumpet section part; all mutes. Snake was standing behind Ralph Sharons grand piano withe the top on the little peg. The audience couldn't see this and niether could Tony. We were hangin' out back stage so we could see it as well as the trumpet section. Snake pulled out his schlong and let it hang. The bass helped hide it from anybody Snake didn't want to see it as well. Somebody got the attention of the trumpet section, and there went that beautiful muted trumpet part. Sounds that came from the section....Phew, aack, slober and gag!!!
Snake... there's another crazy monkeyfarmer. Someone should write a book about that guy. Maybe one about Emil Richards too, while they're at it.

Facinating...

I don't get how it relates to music theory though.

Maestro, you're so much fun!!

Facinating...

I don't get how it relates to music theory though.


Where does a 450 lb. gorilla sit?

So where you guys all wanna go for dinner?

Woops, sorry, off topic. :rolleyes:

So where you guys all wanna go for dinner?

Woops, sorry, off topic. :rolleyes:

I'm NOT interested...I don't eat dinner. :spit:

Nah, I thought it was going somewhere, like "the schlonger the note, the shweeta the sound", or something like that...(LOL!)

Aw, you do have a sense of humor!

PLEASE PAUL, WHEN WILL YOU RIGHT A BOOK? THE "WARBURTON TALES" ...WE NEED IT ;)

Thanks basscrazy, but I don't think people like Maestro would like it. Besides, this is a Theory thread.

If they asked me, i could write a book....

If they asked me, i could write a book....

About the way you walk and whisper and look. I could write a sonnet on how we met, so the world would never forget.
And the simple secret of the plot...is just to tell them that I love you alot. As the world discovers as my book ends, how to make two lovers a friend.

I've never understood what that last line means, but that's it!

"how to make two lovers of friends"

"how to make two lovers of friends"
God damn it Bender, why do you always have to be right...Now that makes sense! You beat me at my own game!

I always thought it was "how to make two lovers upend".

Take one leg off the bed?

God damn it Bender, why do you always have to be right...Now that makes sense! You beat me at my own game!

It's my way of compensating for all of the "wrong" notes I play. :)

Take one leg off the bed?


Man ! Ed I learn heaps from you even if it's not music related :D

HERE ARE SOME BALLOONS I FOUND