Double Bass Is Jazz improvization really improvised?

[Andy Mopley]

Is Jazz Improvisation really Improvised? Here’s The Truth • Jazzadvice

Basic, but neverthelss insightful, IMHO..

Quote
"In performance the entirety of your musicianship is tested all at once. Every skill is connected and dependent upon the other for true creative freedom. Without technique, harmonic knowledge, and great ears you have a huge barrier blocking your creativity and communication with the other musicians on stage. And, without creativity, you’re left with music theory.."

Regards to all

 

[damonsmith]

I think it takes a long time before improvising on tunes is as free as Lee Konitz or Sonny Rollins. I also think it should. I am never very into jazz improvising that sounds like the soloist just "jumps off a cliff" after the head. I like to hear the material being used and worked with - otherwise there is no reason to use the tune.

Even free improvisation can be more of a case of arranging your material in real time. Once you start responding with your material to another musician, things can open up. The difference is, you are improvising the form as music and improvising on it.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

Hmmm, jazz improvisation as a conversational analogy, sounds familiar...

 

[Nashrakh]

It's like building something out of Lego blocks. While you still need a vision of what you want to achieve, you still need to use the blocks that you have before you -- you can't just make something up out of thin air. Same vice versa, without an idea of what you want to build, it'll end up looking terrible. Or not. Who knows anymore.

 

[Bruce Calin]

One of the things that makes playing improvised music with different people so interesting is how I find myself adapting. If I'm playing with a student group or less experienced players it changes what I play in response to the level of expertise. If it's a more capable bunch or people who I know and play with a lot I'll be much more adventurous. It's a question of degree and assessing how things are working out. The style of music is also important. Playing bebop in a trad group will generally not make you many friends, but it's fun to try to be creative in that context anyway.

 

[garrett2]

I think it takes a long time before improvising on tunes is as free as Lee Konitz or Sonny Rollins.

Those are two of the players that I — and many jazz lovers — can name in two notes (maybe one). It’s interesting that the players you mention, and Dolphy and a bunch of others, have such identifiable sounds. They are both very free and wholly formed and individual. I saw Lee Konitz a year before he died and he scatted a lot. His scatting and playing were interchangeable, it was an extension of his sound/rhythmic sense. It’s sort of obvious but with musicians like that it’s something far more holistic than note choice or any of the other ways we break it up and analyze it. James Brandon Lewis is a young one who you can hear that in.

 

[damonsmith]

Hmmm, jazz improvisation as a conversational analogy, sounds familiar...

Well, it doesn't really pan out, because even if you "respond" you are generally putting a layer on what the others are doing. Trading fours, or how Red Mitchell was into trading asymmetrical phrases is the closest it any music ever comes.
Also, the worst material in any improvisation is material that is only meant to demonstrate that "you are listening" - but that material is often helpful in an actual conversation. Ultimately, a conversation would just be a string of solos!
As Peter Kowald once said in a rehearsal we were in, "Listeners should sit in the audience, we need players on stage, listen while you play!".

 

[sean_on_bass]

A big issue with these discussions is a lack of definition of improvisation in the first place. Improv is not exclusively a music thing. We all do it in everyday life to solve basic problems presented to us. We do it in casual conversation all the time. I don't really see how when applied to music it is really any different or mysterious. Just one man's opinion.

 

[Bruce Calin]

A big issue with these discussions is a lack of definition of improvisation in the first place. Improv is not exclusively a music thing. We all do it in everyday life to solve basic problems presented to us. We do it in casual conversation all the time. I don't really see how when applied to music it is really any different or mysterious. Just one man's opinion.

At the risk of massive oversimplification, I would say that the conversation metaphor has a limited application to musical improv. Anything that is not a direct reproduction of written notes or direct memorization of them can broadly be called improvisation no matter the style or genre of music(Mozart was known to be a great improviser). In most styles of jazz, there is a framework that determines the context(the form or structure of the given tune) of what the player bases the improv on. It would be like limiting a conversation to one topic or certain words. This is obviously very general. Some of the heavy hitters need to weigh in.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

In most styles of jazz, there is a framework that determines the context(the form or structure of the given tune) of what the player bases the improv on. It would be like limiting a conversation to one topic or certain words.

I think the analogy of a topic as a conversation starter is a good way to look at that. It starts around this basic framework, but from there it can go pretty much anywhere.

 

[Andy Mopley]

I think the analogy of a topic as a conversation starter is a good way to look at that. It starts around this basic framework, but from there it can go pretty much anywhere.

And that's where the DB/bass player brings it back to the original discussion, right Chris? ))

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

And that's where the DB/bass player brings it back to the original discussion, right Chris? ))

I have to admit that I’m not sure I completely understand this question.

But I can say that it gets tiresome when an attempt is made to throw out an analogy on the basis of it not being a perfect analogy. Conversation, interaction, exchange of ideas… call it whatever you want. It’s a collaborative endeavor where it only works if people are listening to each other and acknowledging what they have heard when the other party expressed themselves in whatever medium. How that collaboration is described by pundits is far less important than the collaboration itself and the fact that it exists and endures.

I thought the article made some good points. They may not have been entirely original, but they were still valid.

 

[Andy Mopley]

Chris, it was meant is the vein of "DB players playing the root note" and hence, no matter how far other instruments stretch, we "anchor" them (or bring them home) ...! But now I am also curious to explore what is the mental process that is involved with hearing a chord progression and improvising...does the ear train the brain or the brain train the ear? I'll go do some research...

 

[Andy Mopley]

And here's another conversation reference (and a really good lesson too!!)

 

[longfinger]

Something to think about, is how people, speaking our native language, are not so freely improvisational in language when in most situations. Going to stores to purchase items, meeting familiar folks along the way, doing errands, social encounters, openers, closers etc. We are all pretty scripted. That's how the "mentalists" and circus psychic entertainers do their "mind reading predictions", sales folks do their thing, and how AI bots are pretty effective in helping customers in chat windows.

Even here in Talkbass, bring out a topic that is well worn, ie dots on fingerboards, jazz improvisation, etc and folks will chime in with answers that are fairly "copy & paste" from previous posts. That's not true improvisation in thought and language is it? Whatever it is, that's humanity.

The better analogy is "presentation of material, with improvised details/elaboration". It's like teachers in front of a class, or team presentations in a business environment. Not fully scripted, but there is a plan in place.

 

[Gravedigger Dav]

Improvisation is a musical conversation. Improvisation is all about ear.
If you are doing the solo, you are listening to what the other instruments and making your soloing sit on top of that. If you are not the solo, you listen to what the soloist is doing and play to support that. But, that is not a complete statement. You have to listen to all the members of the band and play to that.
One part that is often overlooked in these discussions is anticipation. You have to try to predict what the soloist and other members are doing so you know where to go next. The more you play with another person, the more you understand that person's style and it becomes easier to anticipate what he will do.
To me, the best way to get good at improvisation is to go to those open jams that a lot of clubs have.
I love doing improv. In addition to attending open jams, I have a group of 4 that gets together occasionally just to jam. We may use a known tune as a starting point or a progression someone starts. Sometimes the drummer will start a groove and I'll jump in with it. The drummer will also ask me to start a groove and he jumps in.
And to make it really interesting, we often rotate instruments. All of us play multiple instruments.
With the music, tequila (or Canadian whiskey), and other mind altering treats it make a really enjoyable evening.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

Something to think about, is how people, speaking our native language, are not so freely improvisational in language when in most situations. Going to stores to purchase items, meeting familiar folks along the way, doing errands, social encounters, openers, closers etc. We are all pretty scripted. That's how the "mentalists" and circus psychic entertainers do their "mind reading predictions", sales folks do their thing, and how AI bots are pretty effective in helping customers in chat windows.

I'd have to disagree, and I think this is where there is the misinterpretation of what "conversational analogy" is referring to. It's not the "you say something, I say something" idea of exchange, it's the "I don't make up new words or apply new meaning to language when we interact, I use the language I have the most nuanced control over to say what I mean". Even now, yes I am using language and phraseology that I have used in the past to put forth the ideas and feelings that I have about the subject. But scripted? No. I am not rehashing a past conversation, I am interacting with this specific moment in time, in this specific conversation.
Playing with the band that's on the stand.

The better analogy is "presentation of material, with improvised details/elaboration". It's like teachers in front of a class, or team presentations in a business environment. Not fully scripted, but there is a plan in place.

The "plan" is the composition and no one wanders into it without some conception of what that framework is (well, except at some jam sessions I've been to), but that framework is as malleable as one's ears and technique can communicate.

 

[damonsmith]

I agree with this, I am not sure many people take the analogy to the place that you do, however. I still far prefer the construction analogy. Sometimes everyone has to drop everything and work on the "plumbing" together other times one or more musicians have the "plumbing" under control and someone needs to start 'wiring the building" or even getting back to the "foundation".
The great trumpet player Bill Dixon used to say that each person is their own orchestra. To me this means you can re-orchestrate yourself at any moment by changing pitch, register, dynamics or timbre. So orchestrating yourself and constructing something is a better way to start. Alan Silva, who worked with Bill a lot, said he thinks of the bass as the "string section", an idea that really gets going with LaFaro.
I might be better to work yourself back to "conversation" from there so it doesn't turn into a bunch of chatter.
Still, something I have been thinking about with music lately: there are no answers, only "centers". We should use ideas and concepts to center ourselves and never let them be final answers.
Even in terms of listening, we need a multidimensional approach. We need to at least hear the individual details as well as an overview of structure if not more than that.

I'd have to disagree, and I think this is where there is the misinterpretation of what "conversational analogy" is referring to. It's not the "you say something, I say something" idea of exchange, it's the "I don't make up new words or apply new meaning to language when we interact, I use the language I have the most nuanced control over to say what I mean". Even now, yes I am using language and phraseology that I have used in the past to put forth the ideas and feelings that I have about the subject. But scripted? No. I am not rehashing a past conversation, I am interacting with this specific moment in time, in this specific conversation.
Playing with the band that's on the stand.

The "plan" is the composition and no one wanders into it without some conception of what that framework is (well, except at some jam sessions I've been to), but that framework is as malleable as one's ears and technique can communicate.

 

[damonsmith]

I suppose another way to think about it is that the usual impulse is to be "chatty", rather than to hold your ground. Written music has a clearer division of labor, which is something to consider when freeing things up - either around a pre-given structure or one invented in the moment.

 

[longfinger]

"I don't make up new words or apply new meaning to language when we interact, I use the language I have the most nuanced control over to say what I mean".

That is a distinction not always adhered to in these discussion.

Let’s stick with your definition. There is still this large barrier with the conversation analogy.

Reread your quote out loud, listen to your voice as you do. Look at the text on you screen.

I can take your words and write this.

“Je n'invente pas de nouveaux mots ou n'applique pas de nouveau sens au langage lorsque nous interagissons, j'utilise le langage sur lequel j'ai le contrôle le plus nuancé pour dire ce que je veux dire”.

Read that out loud, listen to your voice as you do. They don’t sound remotely the same right?

Look at the text on your screen; same letters but in different order, a few new accents on some. Doesn’t look the same either.


However, the message, the idea, is exactly the same, and you could even have your name as author of the quote without issue.

Because, language, isn’t about the sounds themselves, or the characters themselves, it’s about the ideas they communicate.

However in Music, the sound itself is the message. Change the sounds, change the message.
Much of art is like that.
Language is not like that.

That’s where it seems the analogy breaks. Other analogies seem more relevant.

Language conversations aren’t about the sounds coming out of our mouths. Music conversations really are about the sounds coming out of the instruments.

(In the 19th century there was a big hullabaloo about Program Music, vs Absolute Music. This century, can we say most agree that instrumental music, especially instrumental jazz, is “Absolute”?)


——


For those interested, here is a tangent:

If I were to go back to university to study music theory, I’d go into the topic of how the music affects the listener at a neurological level. How the brain lights up when listening or performing different music pieces. Over thousands of pieces and listeners, trends will likely emerge.

Eg. Calming, nostalgic yet content feeling : these 32 pieces consistently bring it out over thousands of people. Go through those 32 pieces and find what makes it happen. How are the similar, how are they different. Study, Model. Compose an 33rd piece from the model. Can it bring out those emotions? Does it fail? Alter, repeat…

Start doing that well, and it seems we’re at a music theory that can transcend the specific sounds and get to an emotional meaning beyond the sound itself.

The “plan” could become:

Start:
1. agitated excitement, 2. move to order that calms, 3. happiness, 4. extension of happiness, 5. agitations, 6. loss, 7. sadness of the change, 8. calming return of the happiness in a different form, 9. calming nostalgia, 10. satisfaction of the experience, 11. agitated ending with promise in the future.
End.

All in 4 minutes and 33 seconds. . (or 7 minutes.. timing could be part of the plan)

Those would be the feelings, and then there would be a musical compositional method to bring those into sound.

That would be something nice.

21st century music compositional theory. ;-)


I think then it would be more fruitful talking about music as conversations, as there would exist a deeper meaning than the sounds themselves. Now, all that is intuitive.

We have prescriptive and descriptive language to discuss the technique of “how to” and “what is”, but we don’t really have the language to describe the “why”, or “what does it mean?”.