Book Review: Lee Konitz - Conversations on the Improviser's Art

[Paul Warburton]

Originally Posted by hdiddy

I recently saw a show with Mulgrew Miller & Kenny Barron as a duo.

Finally! Something to make fun of.

[hdiddy]

Nah, that show was worth watching and not closing my eyes too. Just to see the interaction, both of the tapping their feet, getting into the music and the audience's reaction. You could tell who were the musicians, all of them giggling when they recognized a quote or ooh'ed when they played out of their musical corners. For me, it isn't the same experience without those things.

I would've liked to have the fortune of seeing Art Blakey play, eye's rolling to his the back of his head and all, as one of my friends describes it.

Reminds me of this piano player I've met and watched at a jazz jam here years ago. David K Matthews who is now the organist for Carlos Santana. He did a Coltrane album a few years back, incredible player, very exciting to watch. When he was tearing up some bebop, he'd start bouncing up from his seat like he was sitting on the back of a bus on a bumpy road. It just magnified the energy of his playing even more without being kitschy.

Anyways, not the derail I'm looking for... sorry P.

[Don Higdon]

Re: Bird and Tristano, it hasn't been mentioned here, but Bird came to Tristano for ideas on how to grow from where he (Bird) was.

[Paul Warburton]

+1.
Not alotta people are aware of this.

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Chris Fitzgerald

I know exactly what me means by this. For me and for a lot of players I play with, these three "faces" are part of a single continuum that players who aspire to some version of greatness carry around within them and use different parts of situationally. If I had to chart it out from one "end" to the other, it would look like this:

Prepared Performance (preplanned/practiced material) --> Compositional Style (free arrangement of practiced material strung together in the moment) --> Pure Improvisation (all "in the moment", eschewing pre-practiced ideas; searching for melody

I won't presume to speak for everyone, but most of the best players I play with regularly do all of these things, and the more I get to know them, the better I am able to recognize in the moment what point on their continuum they are coming from. Further, this perception of where they are usually affects where on the same scale I play in relation to that. If I were to put the above scale into psychological terms, I could simplify it into something like:

Total Security --> Balancing Security and Risk Taking --> Pure Risk Taking

I don't want to hijack Huy's thread, but a discussion of how players use these positions on the scale from moment to moment, tune to tune, performance to performance, and especially in relation to each other could be an interesting sidebar.

Originally Posted by hdiddy

Please, derail away - that's the stuff I live for on TBDB.

OK then.

In the first scale from above:

Prepared Performance (preplanned/practiced material) --> Compositional Style (free arrangement of practiced material strung together in the moment) --> Pure Improvisation (all "in the moment", eschewing pre-practiced ideas; searching for melody

I typically try to live in the second or middle zone and take excursions into the zones on either side depending on the situation. A lot depends on who I'm playing with and what they're doing (and what I know they are or are not capable of dealing with). If the drummer's playing crazy, I'll usually try to play something to balance that and provide a lifeline for the soloist. If the drummer's playing really straight, I'll dip into the third zone and use him as a lifeline if I think the texture lacks interest.

When accompanying or soloing, I also have to be aware of what I think the other guys can handle. The highest level guys can handle anything, which makes them fun to play with and enables a sense of freedom. With lesser players, I'll stay away from creative things that might likely get them lost. One example of this is a way i like to play where I play conventional melodic material, but gradually displace it more and more as I'm playing with motifs so that the effect is of rearranging the barlines. With great players, this is no problem. But some lesser players reset their time based on some displacements that I play, which causes me to have to reset mine to where they are, which makes the music suffer; so with these players, I have to dial back on certain aspects of things I might normally do with stronger players. Ideally, it's tempting to say that it would be best to be in zone 3 (searching for melody regardless of anything else, being as creative as possible) all the time, but in reality its a big balancing act with the highest goal being the service of what the music wants to be at any given moment.

[Treyzer]

Such a great thread! I've just been happily reading along enjoying all of the insights into this topic.

I really like what Chris has to say about the levels of improvisation and that what you're playing depends on who you're playing with!

I do have one question and I hope someone will be able to address it. For me, it seems that all the work done transcribing (something I continue to do), Permeates my playing. This kind of work has allowed me to access, hear and play lines/melodies with a musical depth that was, at some point, beyond my hearing and understanding. I'm almost certain that the guys contributing to this thread have worked long and hard on many of the same things in order to become better and more aware musicians. However, whatever I do, it does seem that the sum of my playing experience seems to come up one way or the other even though at times, I'm guilty of calling up "go to" riffs/licks/phrases in order to get me out of a jam or to help kick start my brain.

So the question is: If you're not just playing a bunch of recycled licks and tricks, how do you determine when you're doing what Mr. Konitz is proposing? Isn't everybody calling on their musical experiences, muscle memory as well as time in the shed? Or am I completely missing the point?

[Ed Fuqua]

Another good, but entirely too expensive, book is An Unsung Cat...

[hdiddy]

Yeah I mentioned Unsung Cat a few posts back and would like to see Warne Marsh's side of things.

Originally Posted by Treyzer

So the question is: If you're not just playing a bunch of recycled licks and tricks, how do you determine when you're doing what Mr. Konitz is proposing? Isn't everybody calling on their musical experiences, muscle memory as well as time in the shed? Or am I completely missing the point?

My interpretation of it is that you're relying on mostly on the ear but also on the language (not the licks) that has been absorbed into your consciousness by working out solos by ear and hearing them in your head. By that point, the licks are now subconscious as is the associated physical technqiue now part of muscle memory. The ear drives the muscles, not the other way around. It's as if you're an athlete - you practice the drills but you chase the ball accordingly and subconsciously apply the correct physical technique that applies in that particular situation. This is where I see jazz improvisation is alot like martial arts.

Now having to just type what I just did I realize that what Konitz is proposing is very similar to what the founder of Aikido proposes - to live in that space where there is nothing but spontaenous creativity, and that everything is an immediate expression that is not bounded by technique or prior conditioning. An ideal sense of freedom to respond within a given paradigm. I think this is exactly why I'm so attracted to jazz and improvisation...

Certainly, hanging out on the right end of the Chris' scale requires that you also confront the innate fear of sounding bad. To get away from the feeling that you're about to "get lost" or the impending doom of "I'm gonna start sounding bad right about now". To hang out in that space and see if you can create something new outta nothing, despite that fear. No references, no preconceived musical ideas, something completely original right on the spot that you ear can conjure.

Well that's my take at least.

EDIT: I think that's why I dig Kontiz playing and guys like Jim Hall, Red, etc so much. There's a sense of vulnerability about what they play, not so much when someone is throwing up a wall of sound.

[Ed Fuqua]

Trey. my take on it from studying with Joe is like this

1.Prepared Performance - it's like a play, there's two people up there talking to each other, but all of that interaction was planned away from and at another time from when the exchange actually takes place. It in no way accounts for anything that may have happened in between the time it was written and the time it actually takes place.
2.Compositional Style - it's like having notes; you know you're going to be talking about evolutionary psychology, so you have some prepared set pieces/factoids that you can drop into the discussion as needed or as called for, but for the most part you are engaged in a pretty organic exchange
3.Pure Improvisation - the conversation I'm always talking about. You don't invent a new language every time you talk to someone, all you are doing is using the vocabulary you have the most nuanced control over to talk about your ideas, concepts and feelings. The direction of the conversation is open to the input of ideas, concepts and feelings from whoever else is involved in the conversation and (here's the good part) even if the other participants are coming from a 1 or a 2, you can still be a 3. It just mean that the exchange can be a little one sided.

[Ed Fuqua]

Also from studying with Joe - the Tristano idea of transcription isn't really about datamining for licks. Or even really about internalizing a solo so that it's "subconsciously yours". It's more about practicing the mechanics of improvisation - hearing a line with enough clarity that you can play it without "guesswork". That's why there's the emphasis on singing the line at half speed, learning all the nuances etc. AND all the emphasis on ear training exercises. Conceive the line by "hearing" it and then play it. You do it with Pres and Louis and Bud and Bird so you can do it with YOU.

[hdiddy]

This is where it gets a little vague for me. I realize it's not an either/or thing but by what you're describing, you're in a way focusing on execution of anything the ear can conceive, where do the ideas come from?

For instance, one part of my particular rut is that I often construct similar phrases - because that's how I heard it. I suppose the phrases change depending on the melody but if I solo 20 choruses over All of Me... my phrases, at least the shape starts to sound the same over time, or I'll get occurances of the same phrases more than once, or at least the shapes/contours are similar.

So how do you get NEW ideas without "datamining"? Or is Joe's approach is not completely intended to be an end-all-be-all system? From the book, I don't think Konitz' approach is neccessarily the same as Joe's in that manner. Actually, I don't recall him explaning exactly why it should be done that way other than to "learn the language" - whatever that means exactly.

[Treyzer]

First off, Thanks Ed and Hiddy. Those are some great clarifications. Based on what Ed is saying, I probably hang out in the Compositional category quite a bit but, probably like a blind pig, fall into the Pure Improvisation mode every so often. That is probably when I come off the stand feeling good about what just transpired.

Now it seems (kind of obvious) that we work on executing what we hear. However, the only way to "hear" better is to listen and work from the masters.

I'm currently working on something by Cannonball Adderley. This really gets me out of bass type solo licks & tricks because the articulations are so much more varied. Lots of this particular solo does not lay under my fingers like many bass solo pieces so I'm trying to learn his solo with as much attention to his note choice and phrasing as possible. This is not for "data mining" purposes. I don't intend to play it live or play exact phrases but it does open my mind and ears to many other possibilities; just working on "hearing" what's going on and get my ears and muscles working in different/new ways. Again, great topic and discussion. Thanks guys!

[Ed Fuqua]

Originally Posted by hdiddy

This is where it gets a little vague for me. I realize it's not an either/or thing but by what you're describing, you're in a way focusing on execution of anything the ear can conceive, where do the ideas come from?

Where do you get the ideas that you come up with that you talk about? You see something, you hear something, you have a new experience, you have an old experience again but the experiences you have had since the last time you had that old experience suddenly makes you see things in a different light. You talk about the fear of getting lost or sounding bad, there's also the fear that you don't have your own voice, your own ideas. But if you trust that it's there and LISTEN for it. Just like you have never found yourself without something to type here. How much of this did you have worked out before you sat down at the keyboard? How much of it has come about because of the way this exchange has evolved? Even though you have not had to learn a single new word to have this exchange, it has been different than anything you have typed before.

[GrowlerBox]

Thanks Diddy, Chris, Ed, Trouser -- this thread is TBDBJT at its best. I haven't yet had time to dig deeply into the Marsh book (the scribd one, not Unsung Cat), but a couple of things strike me. His early lessons (at least) involved highly structured harmonic and time signature exercises, which he would have his student work on until understood and fluent, after which they were advised not to play it again. This was coupled with slow practice of standard melodies developing into improvised lines -- the author has an interesting aside on the recording of Tristano's "Line Up", a story of which I was not aware, but you all may be.

I guess this is analogous to the practice, common in traditional second language teaching (at least when I was at school), of repetitive verb conjugation and noun declension -- once you can do this fluently and understand the structure, you don't do it again, but it informs everything you say that can be understood by an interlocutor.

[hdiddy]

Originally Posted by Ed Fuqua

Where do you get the ideas that you come up with that you talk about? You see something, you hear something, you have a new experience, you have an old experience again but the experiences you have had since the last time you had that old experience suddenly makes you see things in a different light. You talk about the fear of getting lost or sounding bad, there's also the fear that you don't have your own voice, your own ideas. But if you trust that it's there and LISTEN for it. Just like you have never found yourself without something to type here. How much of this did you have worked out before you sat down at the keyboard? How much of it has come about because of the way this exchange has evolved? Even though you have not had to learn a single new word to have this exchange, it has been different than anything you have typed before.

Good point. I'm not ready to snatch that pebble out of your hand.

Thanks Ed.

[JeffKissell]

Originally Posted by Ed Fuqua

Where do you get the ideas that you come up with that you talk about? You see something, you hear something, you have a new experience, you have an old experience again but the experiences you have had since the last time you had that old experience suddenly makes you see things in a different light. You talk about the fear of getting lost or sounding bad, there's also the fear that you don't have your own voice, your own ideas. But if you trust that it's there and LISTEN for it. Just like you have never found yourself without something to type here. How much of this did you have worked out before you sat down at the keyboard? How much of it has come about because of the way this exchange has evolved? Even though you have not had to learn a single new word to have this exchange, it has been different than anything you have typed before.

This may be the most complete and succinct description of improvisation yet written and if it was an actual solo it would only be 3 choruses!

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by hdiddy

My interpretation of it is that you're relying on mostly on the ear but also on the language (not the licks) that has been absorbed into your consciousness by working out solos by ear and hearing them in your head. By that point, the licks are now subconscious as is the associated physical technqiue now part of muscle memory. The ear drives the muscles, not the other way around. It's as if you're an athlete - you practice the drills but you chase the ball accordingly and subconsciously apply the correct physical technique that applies in that particular situation. This is where I see jazz improvisation is alot like martial arts.

......

EDIT: I think that's why I dig Kontiz playing and guys like Jim Hall, Red, etc so much. There's a sense of vulnerability about what they play, not so much when someone is throwing up a wall of sound.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Ed Fuqua

Trey. my take on it from studying with Joe is like this

1.Prepared Performance - it's like a play, there's two people up there talking to each other, but all of that interaction was planned away from and at another time from when the exchange actually takes place. It in no way accounts for anything that may have happened in between the time it was written and the time it actually takes place.
2.Compositional Style - it's like having notes; you know you're going to be talking about evolutionary psychology, so you have some prepared set pieces/factoids that you can drop into the discussion as needed or as called for, but for the most part you are engaged in a pretty organic exchange
3.Pure Improvisation - the conversation I'm always talking about. You don't invent a new language every time you talk to someone, all you are doing is using the vocabulary you have the most nuanced control over to talk about your ideas, concepts and feelings. The direction of the conversation is open to the input of ideas, concepts and feelings from whoever else is involved in the conversation and (here's the good part) even if the other participants are coming from a 1 or a 2, you can still be a 3. It just mean that the exchange can be a little one sided.

Yes, especially the last bit.

Originally Posted by Ed Fuqua

Also from studying with Joe - the Tristano idea of transcription isn't really about datamining for licks. Or even really about internalizing a solo so that it's "subconsciously yours". It's more about practicing the mechanics of improvisation - hearing a line with enough clarity that you can play it without "guesswork". That's why there's the emphasis on singing the line at half speed, learning all the nuances etc. AND all the emphasis on ear training exercises. Conceive the line by "hearing" it and then play it. You do it with Pres and Louis and Bud and Bird so you can do it with YOU.

Yes and yes.

Originally Posted by Ed Fuqua

Where do you get the ideas that you come up with that you talk about? You see something, you hear something, you have a new experience, you have an old experience again but the experiences you have had since the last time you had that old experience suddenly makes you see things in a different light. You talk about the fear of getting lost or sounding bad, there's also the fear that you don't have your own voice, your own ideas. But if you trust that it's there and LISTEN for it. Just like you have never found yourself without something to type here. How much of this did you have worked out before you sat down at the keyboard? How much of it has come about because of the way this exchange has evolved? Even though you have not had to learn a single new word to have this exchange, it has been different than anything you have typed before.

Bingo. Fun as you are to argue with, at this point there's no need.

Originally Posted by Treyzer

If you're not just playing a bunch of recycled licks and tricks, how do you determine when you're doing what Mr. Konitz is proposing? Isn't everybody calling on their musical experiences, muscle memory as well as time in the shed? Or am I completely missing the point?

This is kind of the burning question that a lot of people have. I'm not sure I have a final answer, but I think that I have at least a "meta-answer" to what you posed above. The meta part is that after a while, we all develop a personal VOICE in improvisation that is not limited to the "voice" as it relates to simply the tone we get when we produce sounds on our instrument (which is more of a timbral thing). The uppercase VOICE is more akin to the way we perceive, process, and react; more like our improvisational personality. It's something like a personal way of approaching or doing things as opposed to the things themselves.

The best analogy I can give in words is that it's like imagining what various great composers would likely do with a theme, how they would treat and develop it. Imagine a short melodic fragment in minor, maybe just a single phrase. Next, imagine how Bach would develop it; or course, this is technically impossible to actually accomplish because Bach was a great genius and we are mere mortals, BUT, in spite of this limitation, imagine in general terms how he might likely treat it: one really common approach would be his fugal approach, where he would state the theme by itself, then morph it into a running counterline that goes another direction. At just exactly the point where you start to forget the original them in the details of what it morphed into, he brings back the theme at another pitch level, and you discover that what the theme morphed into was actually a countermelody for the original theme, and now you hear both at the same time. Then with two voices going, theme and countertheme, the second entrance of the theme becomes countertheme and the third voice enters with the theme again, this time with two voices of contrapuntal accompaniment. Then eventually the length of the phrase shortens into stretto, and so on.

Contrast that with the MO of a composer like Beethoven. He might likely state the theme in a more homophonic texture and develop it a bit, but more often than not instead of going directly to the contrapuntal route, he'll fixate on a small piece or motif of the theme and develop that, making it dance through all kinds of transformations, often using that little chunk of melody in the accompaniment as well. Then he would often abandon that original theme and motif and introduce a second strong theme to make you forget about the first, and play with that just long enough to set you up for a return of the first theme, often with elements of the second worked in.

These are very general descriptions, but I hope they make at least a little sense. The important distinction is that what makes the works of these composers great is not so much the themes (read "licks & tricks") theselves, but rather the process or modus operandi through which this material is developed and transformed. Just as a great improvisor can play the same song on two different nights and still sound exactly like themselves without actually playing the exact same solo, I think that great composers could have written different versions of their great works based on the same themes if they had written them at different points in their lives. While it's impossible to say whether these alternate versions would have been better or worse, I think that they would still be imminently recognizable as Beethoven or Bach (etc.),and that they would still be great.

So as all of this applies to the question you posed, I would say that there is a "meta process" at work in each improvising musician which in some general way defines the ways that they are likely to process and develop material; further, that on some meta level, when we transcribe great solos by masters, this "meta process" is a big part of what we are absorbing when we study the results of their work - it's not just about what they did in that moment (i.e. - the licks and tricks that they used), but the way they put those things together that we pick up on. And I think that this last aspect is what becomes a part of our "meta vocabluary", so that when we have absorbed enough of these processes or modus operandi, we become more versatile improvisers because we have more general ways to approach handling a situation.

It's been a very long day, and I'm too tired to tell if what I wrote made any sense. I sure hope so... but it's late and time for bed. Looking forward to reading what everyone else comes up with on this subject!

[MLysh]

Since this conversation has wondered so perilously close to philosophy, it might be interesting to take a moment, amid all the verbiage and conceptualization, to contemplate whether one actually has a choice in any of this.

[hdiddy]

DURRLs mention of Bach reminds me of a conversation with a coworker who is a good piano player that I play with now.

I brought up the idea of learning a tune by first learning the melody sans chords, and then as an exercise try to hear and determine the chords underneath solely based on the melody and then comparing to see how close you by referencing the chart once you're done - as a way of developing some sort of "harmonic intelligence". Obviously, the old showtunes are a bit easier to figure out but as I do it more, I'm getting better at it. Now I've never had formal collegiate music study but he says basically thats what you do in a formal harmony class - to take a Bach melody and put the correct harmony that goes with it.

I'm guessing this is what PDUB does innately means when he said he learned by playing along with the radio. Am I close?

Anyways, you can obviously take everything that DURRL wrote and use it as multiple paths to develop content during soloing - not just from an analysis POV.

[hdiddy]

Originally Posted by MLysh

Since this conversation has wondered so perilously close to philosophy, it might be interesting to take a moment, amid all the verbiage and conceptualization, to contemplate whether one actually has a choice in any of this.

I like the more zen like approach to the same question - are you playing the music or is the music playing you?

TBH, I think you can make plenty of choices while soloing. Stealing the concept from reading Konitz' book: when there's a phrase that I hear easily in my head and I choose not to play it. Painting yourself into a musical corner can be very satisfying when you dig yourself out without much trouble.