jazz IMPROV/SOLO

[Phil Smith]

What makes a great drum solo? What makes a great timbale solo? What makes a good conga solo? What makes a good bongo solo? Answer, rhythm.

[thewanderer24]

Originally Posted by Richard Lindsey

What I really don't get is the whole issue of why any one component of a solo--whether it's rhythm, melody, harmony, tone, or whatever--has to be #1 at all. To me it seems pointless to think that way. We have a bunch of ingredients; the point is simply to use them to make something good. Why even worry about ranking? Everybody already knows that you want to have all the elements happening anyway.

hard to argue with this. BUT, if you had to rank them you've got to admit, the most important part of a solo, By far, is how cool you look while doing it.

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally Posted by thewanderer24

hard to argue with this. BUT, if you had to rank them you've got to admit, the most important part of a solo, By far, is how cool you look while doing it.

Well, yeah, clearly.

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally Posted by Phil Smith

What makes a great drum solo? What makes a great timbale solo? What makes a good conga solo? What makes a good bongo solo? Answer, rhythm.

Not really relevant. The original thread starter was talking about solos on a pitched instrument, namely bass.

You have to take into account that different instruments have different capabilities. Percussion instruments like drums and timbales are melodically limited in comparison with bass or sax or piano. Therefore, the greater part of the interest in any solo on these instruments *has* to come from rhythm, simply because the other options are so limited. Of course rhythm is the main thing for bongo solos--poor suckers haven't got much else to work with!

Conversely, no bassist can approach the rhythmic complexity of a great drummer. So melody and harmony would therefore play a greater role in a bass solo. Obviously, rhythm is essential, and no one is saying it's not. But the idea that you can have a great solo on a pitched instrument where the pitches don't vary or are random seems self-evidently wrong, if only because nobody seems to have any examples of such a thing.

To argue that rhythm is primary for all instruments, just because it may be for some, makes no sense. Again, show me a great *bass* solo, or more than one if you can, where the notes are meaningless but the rhythm makes it great.

[The Clap]

Originally Posted by Richard Lindsey

Again, show me a great *bass* solo, or more than one if you can, where the notes are meaningless but the rhythm makes it great.

Well it's not one or the other, rhythm or note choice, that makes for great playing, nobody would argue that note choice is meaningless or that one-note solos are terribly common. But, if the cake batter is rhythm, the notes on top are definitely just icing, particularly with the bass. You just can't get anything done without a solid rhythm, regardless of your note choice.

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally Posted by The Clap

Well it's not one or the other, rhythm or note choice, that makes for great playing, nobody would argue that note choice is meaningless or that one-note solos are terribly common. But, if the cake batter is rhythm, the notes on top are definitely just icing, particularly with the bass. You just can't get anything done without a solid rhythm, regardless of your note choice.

You can't get anything done without good note choice either, regardless of rhythm. Notes are not just icing. They're every bit as essential as rhythm. If rhythm is sentence structure, notes are the words. Sentences are meaningless without both words and proper structure.

What you said is sorta like saying, you can't get any driving done without four working wheels, no matter what kind of car you drive. Well, yeah--but you also can't get any driving done without an engine, and the best wheels in the world won't help you without one.

And once again, we're talking about *bass solos* here. Again, show me even one great one-note or random-note bass solo. Then, if you find one, compare it with the vast numbers of bass solos in which the notes are not monotonous and random.

[lemur821]

I do think that the notes and rhythm need to work well together. My belief is that it's possible to choose notes that fit any rhythm, and possible to find a rhythm to connect any set of notes. Probably there are some sequences that can't be kept from sounding like glitchy electronica, but there are people who listen to that stuff. I can't give you an example of a solo like that. I'm just going on my gut feeling, much as you are. I'm not saying using random rhythm or notes is a good approach -- judging by its rarity, its probably pretty hard. I just won't rule it out because I can't think of an example.

[thewanderer24]

Let me try to rephrase my initial statement about rhythm that started this crazy hijacked tangent on this thread.

I would never try to argue that the notes don't matter. Of course they matter. What I was trying to suggest, is that one way to practice soloing, at least phrasing and telling coherent stories with your solos, is to separate the rhythm out first.

It is possible to work on solo ideas rhythmically, and I think it can be very helpful (it has been for me, at least). I wind up singing notes in my head, btw, when I do this, but I will tap out a solo idea without my bass, with or without musical accompaniment (if no music, I suggest a metronome). I find practicing this for a while before bringing my bass into it, helps me get more coherent ideas internalized. I try to sing solo ideas before I try to play them if it is something I am struggling with. Once I feel comfortable without my bass, than I bring the bass into it, and start adding the notes.

Separating out the rhythm is also a very good way to learn to use rests in your playing, which are very effective in building tension.

Of course, this method is not gonna work if the kind of solos you are interested in playing are just endless lines of blazing fast 16th notes.

Not sure if this explains any better, but this was really the point of my original post in this thread. Of course all of the different elements are important. I was suggesting that it is often helpful to seperate them from each other - thinking about all of this stuff at once can be really complicated while you are learning to play it - at least for me.

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally Posted by thewanderer24

Let me try to rephrase my initial statement about rhythm that started this crazy hijacked tangent on this thread.

I would never try to argue that the notes don't matter. Of course they matter. What I was trying to suggest, is that one way to practice soloing, at least phrasing and telling coherent stories with your solos, is to separate the rhythm out first.

It is possible to work on solo ideas rhythmically, and I think it can be very helpful (it has been for me, at least). I wind up singing notes in my head, btw, when I do this, but I will tap out a solo idea without my bass, with or without musical accompaniment (if no music, I suggest a metronome). I find practicing this for a while before bringing my bass into it, helps me get more coherent ideas internalized. I try to sing solo ideas before I try to play them if it is something I am struggling with. Once I feel comfortable without my bass, than I bring the bass into it, and start adding the notes.

Separating out the rhythm is also a very good way to learn to use rests in your playing, which are very effective in building tension.

Of course, this method is not gonna work if the kind of solos you are interested in playing are just endless lines of blazing fast 16th notes.

Not sure if this explains any better, but this was really the point of my original post in this thread. Of course all of the different elements are important. I was suggesting that it is often helpful to seperate them from each other - thinking about all of this stuff at once can be really complicated while you are learning to play it - at least for me.

See, when you put it that way, it makes a lot more sense IMO. It definitely makes sense to work on development of rhythmic ideas.

It was statements like this, on the other hand, that kicked off the tangent:

"If you can make the rhythm tell a story, you can put random notes there and it will still sound good. Of course the notes matter, but the rhythm is more important. PERIOD."

or

"The note choices , IME, are the least important part of most solos."

You're always gonna get an argument from somebody around here with that!

[Phil Smith]

I still say the rhythm is what will make or break your solo. Where in time you put the notes, where you use tension where you use release makes a huge difference between whether or not people are feeling what your playing or not. Take a passage out a book and have two readers read it, pitch being equal, the reader with the better dynamic and rhythmic flow is going to captivate you more.

To the OP, what do you mean by Jazzy? Are you hearing more diminished ideas being played?

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally Posted by Phil Smith

Take a passage out a book and have two readers read it, pitch being equal, the reader with the better dynamic and rhythmic flow is going to captivate you more.

Sure, but that doesn't prove your point. First, your statement works equally well if you turn the terms around. Dynamic and rhythmic flow being equal, the passage with better words and sentences is going to captivate you more. Does that mean that pitch is primary?

Second, you're rigging the argument by saying "pitch being equal." Of course if the notes are the same the more compelling rhythm wins. No one said differently. The point is, what if the pitches are not equal?

Imagine two readings done by two actors, one greater (say, Lord Laurence Olivier) and one lesser (say, Keanu Reeves, than whom few working movie actors are lesser). Keanu is reading, say, the conclusion of "Grapes of Wrath," or the Gettysburg Address, or a passage from the book of Job in the King James Bible, or some other superb example of written English. Lord Larry, on the other hand, is repeating the word "cheese," and only the word "cheese," 697 times.

Now, clearly Lord Larry can do more with 697 repetitions of the word "cheese" than most ordinary mortals could, and certainly more than Keanu could, but even his virtuosity can't make something that boring worth hearing (except maybe as a novelty, sort of a Dr. Demento kinda thing). However, even though Keanu can't shine Lord Larry's shoes as an actor, the quality of the prose he's reading is so good that there's something there, even if he can't do nearly as much with it as Olivier could have. You could actually sit still to hear the Gettysburg Address being read, even if you could imagine it being done better.

The best situation, obviously, would be to combine Olivier with the better prose passage. The least appealing would be to hear Keanu Reeves recite the word "cheese" 697 times.

[lowphatbass]

Originally Posted by Phil Smith

I still say the rhythm is what will make or break your solo. Where in time you put the notes, where you use tension where you use release makes a huge difference between whether or not people are feeling what your playing or not. Take a passage out a book and have two readers read it, pitch being equal, the reader with the better dynamic and rhythmic flow is going to captivate you more.

Bieng that spoken word has no key centre I would buy this argument only if the listener was tone deaf(or completely deaf and they were just watching someone solo!). I WILL say, however, that rhythm is more important than note selection when walking a bass line!!

They are both very important, but not always.
Take some later Coltrane for example, he is showering down layers upon layers of notes, we've all heard the expression "sheets of sound". This approach did not depend on rhythm for tension or release, if you've even seen some of these solos transcibed and looked for bar lines you would agree.
To stick with "notey" examples someone like Oscar Peterson uses the ability to lay way back off the beat to get you hanging on just to see if he can finish his runs in time. His solos swing like crazy, add in all the 16th note triplets, a swinging rhymic bonanza!!
The better your rhythmic phrasing is and the better your theory knowledge is the better you are. From a jazz education standpoint theory and scale/note selection gets more attention because it is more complex and difficult to learn, not all agree, needless to say it is much easier to pick-up on your own through listening than jazz theory.

[thewanderer24]

well, sorry to all for hijacking this thread with my poor choice of words, but I'm really enjoying reading this!!

[Phil Smith]

Richard Lindsey, you're still trying to hold onto this concept of the single note to prove some point.

Sure, but that doesn't prove your point. First, your statement works equally well if you turn the terms around. Dynamic and rhythmic flow being equal, the passage with better words and sentences is going to captivate you more. Does that mean that pitch is primary?

The point I'm making is that you don't have to agree or be interested in the subject presented but still be totally captivated by the speaker because of the delivery i.e. the rhythm and the dynamics, the presentation if you will.

[Classical_Thump]

hey guys, thanks for all your advice. i just realized this thread had taken off, and found a lot of valuable info. i am checkin out the thread that was posted now, and hopefully i will be able to get to a point whre im happy.