GREAT! idea for Jazz Educators/Students
Ellery Eskelin
Jeff Harrison wrote:
> Jazz teachers/students who have the program Band-In-A-Box, and find
> transcribing solos a beneficial should try using BIAB's "SOLOIST" feature.
> Here's what I've done:
WOW!
I checked out the web site on this software. Here's a blurb from it...
<<<<<<<<<Automatic Soloing! Pick any song or chords in any style, and
choose a "Soloist". Band-in-a-Box 7.0 then creates and plays a
professional quality solo, in the style of your choice. Previous
versions of Band-in-a-Box created great accompaniment. Now you can hear
sensational solos as well -- showing you exactly what notes are played.
Choose from "soloists" in the style similar to great jazz musicians such
as Django Reinhardt, John Coltrane, or country/ pop soloists and others,
or create your own soloists using the "Soloist Maker".
Soloist Maker: This module allows you to define your own soloists. For
example, let's say you want to create a soloist in a style similar to
the style of "John Coltrane"-- the great jazz saxophonist. The soloist
maker allows you to define the
parameters essential to Coltrane's playing, such as instrument range
(i.e. tenor saxophone), extra legato playing, playing more on top of the
beat than typical jazz musicians, and playing straighter 8th notes than
usual swing 8th notes. Also, you
can set phrasing options, such as how long the phrase should be, and how
much "space" to leave between phrases. You can also set how "outside"
the playing should be. In the case of a John Coltrane style -- you set
that to the maximum! Then, "turn him loose," and hear the soloist play
over any song!>>>>>>>>>>
OK people....Let er RIP!
EE
Jeff Harrison
Jazz teachers/students who have the program Band-In-A-Box, and find
transcribing solos a beneficial should try using BIAB's "SOLOIST" feature.
Here's what I've done:
1] Enter the changes of the tune they're working on and have the program
generate a solo with the "Soloist";
2] record the solo at full speed and perhaps a slower speed as well - I
also record the solo with drums only to make it easier to hear the notes;
3] print a copy of the solo with the programs notation feature. It's not
PERFECTLY accurate but quite good - exporting a MIDI file of the solo into
a REAL music notation program like Finale is always an option.
4] hand it over to the student and let 'er rip!!! A few of my kids have
shown great results through using this method!
BIAB is great for this since it allows you to control a number of aspects
like the range of notes and the complexity of the solo. This enables
tailoring the solo to the ability level of the student. I love this since
finding suitable recordings for younger to transcribe has alway been
difficult if not impossible.
BTW, I don't work for PG Music - I'm just a happy jazz teacher with access
to yet another great computer-based tool. Check them out!
<http://www.pgmusic.com/products.htm>
I also recommend purchasing the advanced soloist discs #2 and #3. The
program generate pretty good stuff with the program's included soloist
(which is #1) but these soloists are much better. Highly recommended. More
info at:
<http://www.pgmusic.com/solosets.htm#solo2>
Keep spreading the gospel of JAZZ!!!
Best,
Jeff Harrison
Marc Sabatella
jeff...@deltanet.com_REMOVE_TO_REPLY (Jeff Harrison) wrote:
>Jazz teachers/students who have the program Band-In-A-Box, and find
>transcribing solos a beneficial should try using BIAB's "SOLOIST" feature.
>Here's what I've done:
>
>1] Enter the changes of the tune they're working on and have the program
>generate a solo with the "Soloist";
>
>2] record the solo at full speed and perhaps a slower speed as well - I
>also record the solo with drums only to make it easier to hear the notes;
>
>3] print a copy of the solo with the programs notation feature. It's not
>PERFECTLY accurate but quite good - exporting a MIDI file of the solo into
>a REAL music notation program like Finale is always an option.
>
>4] hand it over to the student and let 'er rip!!! A few of my kids have
>shown great results through using this method!
Great results at what? If you mean they can successfully play back what
was notated for them, well fine, but aren't there thousands of other
printed exercise material they could work on? What does this have to do
with learning to improvise?
People who've read my posts over the years realize I'm no gigantic fan
of transcribing solos, but to the extent I find it has value, the
approach outlined above pretty much eliminates it:
1) One benefit of transcribing is for ear training. Having a
notated solo handed to you eliminates that. This goes for published
transcriptions of "real" solos as well as BIAB.
2) Another benefit of transcribing is to see how real people applied
whatever theory they might have learned (presumably, one would choose
someone whose style the transcriber wished to emulate in some respect).
I can't imagine that learning how a computer applies theory would be
particularly enlightening, and I'm certainly not interested in emulating
the computer's style.
>This enables
>tailoring the solo to the ability level of the student. I love this since
>finding suitable recordings for younger to transcribe has alway been
>difficult if not impossible.
There are any number of solos by people like Miles Davis, Chet Baker,
Paul Desmond, and others that should be approachable by anyone.
>BTW, I don't work for PG Music - I'm just a happy jazz teacher with access
>to yet another great computer-based tool. Check them out!
I definitely aree BIAB is a fantastic tool. I'm just not sure I see the
benefit of handing students computer-generated exercises to play, as a
means of teaching anything but how to play computer-generated exercises.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
"The Outside Shore"
A Jazz Improvisation Primer, Scores, Sounds, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Jeff Harrison
In article <5siien$4i9$1...@cactus.verinet.com>, ma...@outsideshore.com (Marc
Sabatella) wrote:
> Great results at what? If you mean they can successfully play back what
> was notated for them, well fine, but aren't there thousands of other
> printed exercise material they could work on?
No Marc, playing back what THEY transcribed. Looking at, as well as
HEARING what is being played by someone (or "something" in this case) with
more skill than themselves and emulating it and perhaps, someday
transcending it is all this is about. I don't just simply hand them a
notated solo - that would be relatively useless in most instances. I hand
them a TAPE of the generated solo. I tailor the solo to their ability
level and to the ACTUAL TUNE/PROGRESSION THEY ARE WORKING ON. No printed
material in existance could give me this type of flexability.
> What does this have to do with learning to improvise?
What does hearing an good improvisation have to do with learning to
improvise?. Listening to improvisation is fundamental to learning it;
transcribing it unlocks the "mystery" of what a skilled player does even
further and forces one to REALLY listen even closer.
> People who've read my posts over the years realize I'm no gigantic fan
> of transcribing solos,
Yes, most rmb-er's know how you feel about this matter. Many jazz greats,
like Chick Corea as an example, would disagree. I personally have not
found many books & methods by the great jazz pedagogues that agree with
you either. I KNOW that it has help my kids get started. Just to hear even
"so-so" ideas gets them started. Fortunately BIAB can even do a bit better
than "so-so". I wasn't wanted to start yet another debate on transcribing
- just to let the pro-transcription camp aware of a great tool.
> 1) One benefit of transcribing is for ear training. Having a
> notated solo handed to you eliminates that.
Like I said above, I don't do that.
> I can't imagine that learning how a computer applies theory would be
> particularly enlightening, and I'm certainly not interested in emulating
> the computer's style.
Knowing you to be a computer-literate person I'm surprised that you would
make such a statement. You know as well as anyone WHO programmed the
computer. It was a human. A human using his knowledge of jazz
improvisation. Of course it won't create a solo of vast intelligence.
However, a beginning improviser can still get a great deal of use from
this. Since you apparantly don't teach young beginning improvisers, I'm
not sure if your comments about this are pertinent. As I said, my kids get
a great start from using this tool. It gives them a starting point to
later expand on.
> There are any number of solos by people like Miles Davis, Chet Baker,
> Paul Desmond, and others that should be approachable by anyone.
That's great and they will eventually go on to these. Regardless, to spend
the kind of money necessary to build an "easy solos" library can be
somewhat daunting even if you could find the variety that you'd need. It
is still near impossible to find lots of good "easy" solos on changes that
they tend to work on. This method fills a simple need. It is just another
tool. However, I would not champion it as the ONLY tool.
> I definitely aree BIAB is a fantastic tool. I'm just not sure I see the
> benefit of handing students computer-generated exercises to play, as a
> means of teaching anything but how to play computer-generated exercises.
Like I said above...
Jazz teachers should as least try it. If you, like Marc, feel that
transcibing has suspect benefits then don't use it. However, I KNOW it is
helpful.
Jeff Harrison
Jeff Harrison
Marc Sabatella wrote:
> In general, you seem to have taken my comments as more adversarial than
> they were intended; I apologize if my tone of posting came off that way.
They probably weren't. That's just my nature. Fault #53! Actually I was
glad to see you join in the discussion being a fan of your posts.
> Do what you like, and recommend what you like, but don't be surprised
> if others recommend differently or question your recommendations. I am
> not saying what you are recommending is bad, but I am trying to
> understand why you prefer it to methods that seem preferable to me.
A lot of learning/teaching improv is seemingly fraught with controvery! I
have spoken to so many people about how they learned and gotten so many
different replys. However, mention how one person learned it to another
and they'll say, "That's not how you're supposed to learn it!"
> >I tailor the solo to their ability
> >level and to the ACTUAL TUNE/PROGRESSION THEY ARE WORKING ON. No printed
> >material in existance could give me this type of flexability.
> No, but it that much flexibility really necessary? I agree that using
> BIAB gives you more *more* flexibility, but I am not sure it is worth
> the (non-monetary) cost. You said you weren't using written material,
> so it should just be a matter of finding some suitable recordings. I
> assume you have the luxury of picking their learning material, so you
> have the freedom to use whatever pieces are best represented in whatever
> recordings you have access to.
Well, I'm talking just barely out of voicing pop tunes with no extensions
here. The flexibility I need is ANY improv on easier chord progression.
That's really why I like BIAB's soloist feature. I don't recall exactly
what I said about written material but I do use it. Fake book charts right
out of the NRB or the classic RB.
As far as finding suitable recordings, again I have to stress these kids
are just babes in woods. The easiest solos are usually too hard not to
mention hard to find. Unfortunately, albums aren't marked with the sticker
"Easy-to-transcribe solos included" ;-)
> I know, with only a few
> hundred recordings in my own collection, I've got tons of stuff that
> would qualify, and that was true when my collection numbered less than a
> hundred as well. Maybe not entire solos, but certainly sections large
> enough to be useful. To me, transcribing should be about learning the
> vocabulary, and that can be done a few phrases at a time.
To be very honest, that's really an idea that I haven't persued much.
Snippets vs. the whole enchilada. That's a fantastic idea. In the realm of
transcribing I'd never really thought of going that route dispite its
seeming so obvious. Thanks!
> True enough. I definitely admit to being in the minority here. Then
> again, you should be aware that a great many musicians have nothing but
> disdain for the "great jazz pedagogues", because they emphasize that
> which can easily be quantified and taught over that which needs to be
> learned. And I can tell you that of the musicians *I* respect and have
> had the oportunity to discuss the matter with, very few consider
> transcribing an important part of their learning.
Well, I probably shouldn't touch the pedagogue quote. Suffice it to say I
would like to see how the "disdainful", if made to, would teach improv. I
believe in any artistic endeavor, the teacher can give tools but never
really "teach" what has to be learned. You're AQ (artistic quotient) is
either high or it ain't. This is really a whole different can of worms.
> So I'm not exactly a
> minority of one. Again, I don't condemn the practice - I do see that it
> has value. It's just that I prefer spending my time on other pursuits
> which I find equally (or more) valuable, and I recommend others do the
> same.
Actually, we agree here. I said originally that I liked BIAB's soloist and
that I thought it was a good way to give students "one possibility" of how
someone might play the changes. But I don't think transcibing is the is
best or most useful endeavor in jazz practicing.
>And to the extent I see the value in transcribing, I still
> question the merit of transcribing a computer-generated solo over a
> passage from a real solo.
>
> >I wasn't wanted to start yet another debate on transcribing
> >- just to let the pro-transcription camp aware of a great tool.
And to some extent I agree here too. I could make the analogy of BIAB
being like teaching phonics; but eventually I still really want you to
learn to read (ie. "real" solos).
> I understand, but this is, after, a forum for discussion; you shouldn't
> express surprise when people want to discuss ideas you present. And
> almost everyone I know that recommends transcribing does so because it
> helps you understand how *real* musicians do things, so I still wonder
> how "the pro-transcription camp" will feel about transcribing BIAB solo.
I sure like to hear other comments on this too. The solos are really not
that bad considering their source. You could, by no means, call them
artistic. It's somewhat akin to a "lick factory" spewing out ideas. In a
way, your snippet idea is being worked here - but over one complete set of
changes. It appears that the programmers simply took tons of jazz cliches
and programmed them to transpose and play over relavant changes. It might
not lead to great art but it gives a neophyte a good idea of what can be
played.
> OK, so my original statement was oversimplified. Let me restate it.
> Why emulate a solo created by someone of dubious musical talent (I mean
> this in the sense that I have never heard Gammon play, so I am in doubt
> as to his musical talent), that was created using a small portion of
> that persons' musical talent - the portion which he was able to quantify
> and codify as an algorithm? The resulting solo may well contain
> interesting sequences of notes (although not likely as interesting as
> ones improvised by better musicians), but will be devoid of many of the
> other aspects of music that make people want to play it in the first
> place. It may still sound OK, and some good may come if a student
> transcribes it, but I think more good would be achieved by taking the
> time to find real solos (or portions thereof) to transcribe.
Again, I basically agree but again emphansize the relatively low skill
level of the student I'd do this with. Still, the "snippet" idea is great!
> >Since you apparantly don't teach young beginning improvisers, I'm
> >not sure if your comments about this are pertinent.
>
> I have rarely had a student who did *not* fall into this category.
Apologies. I thought you were a Hewlett-Packard guy by day and a
jazz-monster by night. ;-)
> Well, you "know" of examples where you perceived that it has helped, and
> I "know" of examples where I perceive that it has hurt - either by
> producing unoriginal players, or players who didn't progress as fast as
> those who used different methods. I think all either of us really
> *knows* is his own perspective.
So true. However, I don't think you could blame transcription on producing
unoriginal players. Again, art at the highest levels just isn't teachable.
Transcription is just another tool. How you and your artistic mind
*choose* to process that experience is not something a teacher can really
guide. I don't think that forcing [insert your favorite jazz artist's name
here] to transcribe would have changed their art for the worse.
ANYWAY...
All this makes me wonder what you (and the others eavesdropping) consider
the best/better ways to PRACTICE JAZZ. I've heard a few stories and read a
few books/improv-course syllabi but not as much as I'd like. So the
question is...
HOW DO YOU PRACTICE JAZZ?
Cheers,
Jeff Harrison
Ellery Eskelin
Marc Sabatella wrote:
> Any form of transcribing will lead to an inordinate
> focus on moment-to-moment detail. I think simply *listening* to a solo
> (often enough to feel one "knows" it on some level, if not
> note-for-note) is the best way to get the big picture.
I'm certainly not one to over-emphasize transcribing but I should
mention that the little that I did was in fact rather helpful in terms
of getting a bigger picture, or at least in helping me percieve how that
bigger picture might be devoloped. In particular, there was a Sonny
Stitt solo from "The Eternal Triangle" (w/Dizzy & Rollins) that helped
me to realize that what I thought sounded increadibly complicated often
turned out to be rather simple. Stitt got a lot of milage out of very
straightforward playing. It made me think about the relationship of
phrases to one another over longer stretches of time. The Rollins solo
from that track was also instructive. Often times what made a particular
line so spine chilling was the "set-up", usually a development of some
simpler material before hand, rather than the line itself.
I think the value of transcribing for the sake of learning licks is
limited at best. It helped me to get started but I wouldn't want to
indulge that aspect of it much beyond that. I think transcribing has
benifits in showing how a players mind works and how melodies are built.
Then the idea is to quickly transfer that process to making your own
melodies, ultimately right on the spot.
I learned one good way to do that from Lee Konitz. I saw a workshop he
did in which he demonstrated a practice process of playing the melody of
a song (MANY times), then playing a solo in whole notes alone (MANY
times), then half notes (MANY times), quarters (MANY times), and eighths
(MANY times). Most people at the workshop were completely underwhelmed,
hoping instead that he would have bestowed some "hip" licks on them. I
on the otherhand took his method to heart and tried it. It gets you away
from licks entirely. You have to hear every note before you play it. You
wind up playing melody instead of licks.
By the way, I posted earlier on this thread because I was so amused at
the promotional blurb for this "band in a box" thing. I have no
experience with it so perhaps I should reserve judgement. I would only
say that the very qualities that it may be poor at (devolping a
satisfying developed musical statement over time, as opposed creating
functional licks) might actually take a students attention away from the
very thing that transcribing a great solo might offer.
Just my two cents...
EE
PS I might mention that anyone interested in the Stitt solo I mentioned
can find a my transcription and article published in DownBeat, June '93,
page 54.
Marc Sabatella
>A lot of learning/teaching improv is seemingly fraught with controvery! I
>have spoken to so many people about how they learned and gotten so many
>different replys. However, mention how one person learned it to another
>and they'll say, "That's not how you're supposed to learn it!"
I try to catch myself when I start to say anything remotely like "not
supposed to", in virtually any musical context, and have to admit, I
didn't succeed here.
>I don't recall exactly
>what I said about written material but I do use it. Fake book charts right
>out of the NRB or the classic RB.
Oh, definitely. Even the charts in the old RB which are supposedly so
fraught with errors (oh good, another flame war:-) - from a practical
perspective, it still helps to learn the arrangement everyone else is
using. In fact, I just coined a new phrase in a letter I wrote to
another music teacher a few minutes ago. I was going to say "Just to
make sure we're on the same wavelength...", but decided that was a tired
cliche, and I could do better. So I wrote "Just to make sure we're
playing the same changes...". Take note; I plan to run this one into
the ground over the next few months :-)
>As far as finding suitable recordings, again I have to stress these kids
>are just babes in woods.
I'm curious. Do you mean just beginning on their instrument, or just
beginning to improvise? Do you normally teach the former or latter?
Care to compare experiences?
I used to be of the opinion that it was best to develop technical
facility first before learning to improvise; also, I tend to prefer
working with students who are at a certain, shall we say, maturity
level. As a result, most of my students could already play, and wanted
to learn how to do something different - play jazz. What I found,
though, was that such students often had real mental blocks regarding
the whole idea of improvisation if they had never done it before, or, if
they had improvised, had developed ruts that it was nearly impossible to
break them out of.
Indeed, in retrospect, I'm surprised I ever became a decent jazz player
:-) But I do think listening *a lot* to the style of music in which one
intends to play is the single most important thing one can do in order
to play that style convincingly.
>> Maybe not entire solos, but certainly sections large
>> enough to be useful. To me, transcribing should be about learning the
>> vocabulary, and that can be done a few phrases at a time.
>
>To be very honest, that's really an idea that I haven't persued much.
>Snippets vs. the whole enchilada. That's a fantastic idea. In the realm of
>transcribing I'd never really thought of going that route dispite its
>seeming so obvious. Thanks!
You're welcome. To be clear (ahem - "just to be sure we're playing the
same changes here"), this has advantages and disadvantages, which I'll
try to explain.
The goal this approach serves is "learning the vocabulary", and it is
certainly important for students who have developed phrasing patterns
that don't resemble jazz at all, and presumably would be important for
those who haven't learned any phrasing patterns at all. The advantage
of the "snippet" approach is that it allows the student to focus on
whatever you or he find especially cool, or especially approachable, or
especially important. High return, compared to painstakingly
transcribing someone running some scales or arpeggios or just playing
the sort of uninspired filler that make up the majority of most "real"
solos.
The downside of this approach is that it encourages students to focus on
"licks" and play solos that are strung together from particularly hip
phrases they have learned this way. One still needs to get a sense for
how one actually constructs a whole solo, with development of themes, a
sense of order from beginning to end, and so forth.
On the other hand, I'm not convinced transcribing a whole solo gives you
that, either. Any form of transcribing will lead to an inordinate
focus on moment-to-moment detail. I think simply *listening* to a solo
(often enough to feel one "knows" it on some level, if not
note-for-note) is the best way to get the big picture.
Which suggests an obvious analogy. If I want to learn to paint,
studying a real painting up close, and trying to copy brush technique
and so forth, will certainly give me a sense of the "vocabulary" of
painting at the lowest levels. But I needn't copy a whole painting to
get this. And furthermore, if I want to get a sense for choice of
subject, composition, and other matters important to creating art, I'm
not convinced that copying entire paintings is going to help nearly as
much on a per-hour basis as much as simply *looking* at lots of
paintings.
So back to the issue of how to learn the vocabulary. Transcribing - of
snippets, whole solos, or computer-generated solos - is certainly one
way. In my case, I think it came from playing big band charts in high
school - even the piano parts tended to notated enough to show me some
things. Especially with regard to voicings. I also learned elements of
jazz melody and rhythm from *listening* to the other sections, and
indeed, I could probably play many of their licks along with them, just
from hearing them shed their parts over and over. Plus I listened to
jazz on the radio and on recordings where possible, and sang along with
pieces (solos and all) as I "learned" them from hearing them often
enough.
To me, this was a pretty natural/organic way to learn the idiom, and I
think it worked well. I also have another technique that I've been
using with "real good success" (baseball talk meaning "especially good
success", according to Dave Barry's "Ask Mr. Language Person") with my
own students. Amazingly quick results, although it takes a long time
before it starts really sinking in. What I do is this: I trade fours
with my students. Well, not necessarily fours; I often do this without
a steady tempo or form underlying our playing. I tell the student not
to try to mimic my lines, but rather respond to them, trying to keep in
style. It is astounding how quickly the most hopeless-sounding students
suddenly start phrasing like pros (well, specifically, like me :-).
However, this approach requires one-on-one time with the student, and we
simply can't get enough of that. If there was a way for the student to
get this kind of practice on his own - perhaps BIAB can be configured to
trade fours with a student improvisor? - I think I'd almost be
ready to declare I had found the One True Way to learn jazz phrasing.
of course, this fits in well with the received wisdom from any greats
that came up playing with already established greats (eg, Miles with
Bird, Sanders with Trane) - you always hear things like "just being in
the same room with so-and-so on a regular basis was a learning
experience". I think the exercise I described here contains some of the
essence of that experience.
>Well, I probably shouldn't touch the pedagogue quote. Suffice it to say I
>would like to see how the "disdainful", if made to, would teach improv.
I don't think anyone claims to have the answers.
>I sure like to hear other comments on this too. The solos are really not
>that bad considering their source. You could, by no means, call them
>artistic. It's somewhat akin to a "lick factory" spewing out ideas. In a
>way, your snippet idea is being worked here - but over one complete set of
>changes. It appears that the programmers simply took tons of jazz cliches
>and programmed them to transpose and play over relavant changes. It might
>not lead to great art but it gives a neophyte a good idea of what can be
>played.
Makes sense to me. And at least it does allow for practice at home.
>> >Since you apparantly don't teach young beginning improvisers, I'm
>> >not sure if your comments about this are pertinent.
>>
>> I have rarely had a student who did *not* fall into this category.
>
>Apologies. I thought you were a Hewlett-Packard guy by day and a
>jazz-monster by night. ;-)
Actually, I quit HP back in December to devote myself full-time to
music. Also, I should note I didn't appropriately note the word "young"
above; most of my students are at least high school age.
>So true. However, I don't think you could blame transcription on producing
>unoriginal players. Again, art at the highest levels just isn't teachable.
Definitely agreed.
>All this makes me wonder what you (and the others eavesdropping) consider
>the best/better ways to PRACTICE JAZZ. I've heard a few stories and read a
>few books/improv-course syllabi but not as much as I'd like. So the
>question is...
>
>HOW DO YOU PRACTICE JAZZ?
See my above comments regarding my own initial experiences and my
current teaching methods. Perhaps later I'll try to post more. For
now, let me drag out this quote from Cecil Taylor that I've used before:
Cecil: What do you practice
Student: I start with some scales...
Cecil: Is that music to you?
Student: No
Cecil: Then why do you practice it?
Marc Sabatella
Jeff Harrison wrote:
>I don't just simply hand them a
>notated solo - that would be relatively useless in most instances.
Ah. This was unclear to me in your original message; your step 3 was to
print the score, and step 4 was "hand it to the student"; I assumed you
meant the score, not the recording. It really sounded like you were
simply handing them printed solos to practice, just like you'd hand
them any other written etude. So many of my comments obviously do not
apply.
In general, you seem to have taken my comments as more adversarial than
they were intended; I apologize if my tone of posting came off that way.
Do what you like, and recommend what you like, but don't be surprised
if others recommend differently or question your recommendations. I am
not saying what you are recommending is bad, but I am trying to
understand why you prefer it to methods that seem preferable to me.
>I tailor the solo to their ability
>level and to the ACTUAL TUNE/PROGRESSION THEY ARE WORKING ON. No printed
>material in existance could give me this type of flexability.
No, but it that much flexibility really necessary? I agree that using
BIAB gives you more *more* flexibility, but I am not sure it is worth
the (non-monetary) cost. You said you weren't using written material,
so it should just be a matter of finding some suitable recordings. I
assume you have the luxury of picking their learning material, so you
have the freedom to use whatever pieces are best represented in whatever
recordings you have access to.
Elsewhere, you say it would take a lot of money to build a library
containing suitable material. I find this comment strange - it seems to
me that someone teaching improvisation would already have access to a
reasonably large collection of recordings. I know, with only a few
hundred recordings in my own collection, I've got tons of stuff that
would qualify, and that was true when my collection numbered less than a
hundred as well. Maybe not entire solos, but certainly sections large
enough to be useful. To me, transcribing should be about learning the
vocabulary, and that can be done a few phrases at a time. I don't think
it should be that hard to find relevant passages for students to learn
from.
>> People who've read my posts over the years realize I'm no gigantic fan
>> of transcribing solos,
>
>Yes, most rmb-er's know how you feel about this matter. Many jazz greats,
>like Chick Corea as an example, would disagree. I personally have not
>found many books & methods by the great jazz pedagogues that agree with
>you either.
True enough. I definitely admit to being in the minority here. Then
again, you should be aware that a great many musicians have nothing but
disdain for the "great jazz pedagogues", because they emphasize that
which can easily be quantified and taught over that which needs to be
learned. And I can tell you that of the musicians *I* respect and have
had the oportunity to discuss the matter with, very few consider
transcribing an important part of their learning. So I'm not exactly a
minority of one. Again, I don't condemn the practice - I do see that it
has value. It's just that I prefer spending my time on other pursuits
which I find equally (or more) valuable, and I recommend others do the
same. And to the extent I see the value in transcribing, I still
question the merit of transcribing a computer-generated solo over a
passage from a real solo.
>I wasn't wanted to start yet another debate on transcribing
>- just to let the pro-transcription camp aware of a great tool.
I understand, but this is, after, a forum for discussion; you shouldn't
express surprise when people want to discuss ideas you present. And
almost everyone I know that recommends transcribing does so because it
helps you understand how *real* musicians do things, so I still wonder
how "the pro-transcription camp" will feel about transcribing BIAB solo.
>> I can't imagine that learning how a computer applies theory would be
>> particularly enlightening, and I'm certainly not interested in emulating
>> the computer's style.
>
>Knowing you to be a computer-literate person I'm surprised that you would
>make such a statement. You know as well as anyone WHO programmed the
>computer. It was a human. A human using his knowledge of jazz
>improvisation. Of course it won't create a solo of vast intelligence.
OK, so my original statement was oversimplified. Let me restate it.
Why emulate a solo created by someone of dubious musical talent (I mean
this in the sense that I have never heard Gammon play, so I am in doubt
as to his musical talent), that was created using a small portion of
that persons' musical talent - the portion which he was able to quantify
and codify as an algorithm? The resulting solo may well contain
interesting sequences of notes (although not likely as interesting as
ones improvised by better musicians), but will be devoid of many of the
other aspects of music that make people want to play it in the first
place. It may still sound OK, and some good may come if a student
transcribes it, but I think more good would be achieved by taking the
time to find real solos (or portions thereof) to transcribe.
>Since you apparantly don't teach young beginning improvisers, I'm
>not sure if your comments about this are pertinent.
I have rarely had a student who did *not* fall into this category.
>Jazz teachers should as least try it. If you, like Marc, feel that
>transcibing has suspect benefits then don't use it. However, I KNOW it is
>helpful.
Well, you "know" of examples where you perceived that it has helped, and
I "know" of examples where I perceive that it has hurt - either by
producing unoriginal players, or players who didn't progress as fast as
those who used different methods. I think all either of us really
*knows* is his own perspective.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com (Marc Sabatella) wrote:
>>All this makes me wonder what you (and the others eavesdropping) consider
>>the best/better ways to PRACTICE JAZZ. I've heard a few stories and read a
>>few books/improv-course syllabi but not as much as I'd like. So the
>>question is...
>>
>>HOW DO YOU PRACTICE JAZZ?
>
>See my above comments regarding my own initial experiences and my
>current teaching methods. Perhaps later I'll try to post more. For
>now, let me drag out this quote from Cecil Taylor that I've used before:
>
>Cecil: What do you practice
>Student: I start with some scales...
>Cecil: Is that music to you?
>Student: No
>Cecil: Then why do you practice it?
OK, here are some more thoughts on my current practice techniques. Note
I have for the most part gotten past the phase of needing to practice
technique, scales, chord voicings, or anything like that. So what
follows is not meant as a substitute for learning those fundamentals.
On the other hand, I think the types of routines I talk about below are
just as important to a beginning or intermediate player as to a
professional; it's just that the former will need to supplement this
kind of practice with something more structured as well.
First, I don't practice much, and I don't often go about it in any
planned way. It's more like, I feel like playing, so I sit down and
play. Not necessarily every day, if you can imagine that. In this
respect, being a pianist is a definite advantage. I don't have have to
spend a lot of time worrying about maintaining my embouchure or
callouses or anything like that. I don't lose much technically if I
were to go even a couple of weeks without playing. Whereas when I
played clarinet (not jazz), two days away from the instrument meant pain
in the mouth next time I tried to play, and noticeably worse tone.
So, what *do* I practice? I would have to take a step back for a
moment to answer that question fully. The things I feel I need to learn
are not always things that have a direct relationship to being at the
piano. I feel I am "practicing" any time I listed to music. Not just
jazz, either, although I rarely listen to anything else at home. But I
listen to other types of bands live pretty often, and spend a lot of
time while listening trying to get inside the music, seeing how the
different grooves are put together, and so forth. Similarly, when
listening to jazz at home, I often listen analytically, mentally noting
particular devices used by soloists or accompanists. Very rarely, I'll
go over to the piano and try to reproduce something I found especially
interesting or confusing. Also, I have the local jazz station on as
background music almost all the time, so even when I am not actively
listening, I'm hearing, and a wider range of music than I might
otherwise choose to listen to. In particular, more blues, salsa, big
bands, and singers. One thing I get from this is a sense of form - you
rarely see head-solos-head going on in any but the most straightahead
jazz. Another is a sense of variety from tune to tune that goes beyond
just different permutations of swing, psuedo-Latin, and ballad. I also
think about music a great deal when not listening - again, working in
my mind on things like textures.
Note that I haven't said anything about what I do when I sit at the
piano. Many of you may be wondering why I wasted my time talking about
all this other stuff. All I can say is, much of my development as a
player comes from these activities. And I am constantly surprised how
many musicians *don't* listen to music nearly so much, or else, they
only listed to their same old favorite CD's over and over. To me, these
people are missing out on a great opportunity to grow without having to
sit down and shed.
OK, so finally we get down to the time I spend sitting at the piano,
which is only a fraction of the time I spend learning. I'd say more
than half of my piano-playing time is mostly about pleasure: I like to
play, so I sit down and play whatever I feel like playing - standards,
my originals, whatever.
I try to push myself, of course - to do things I don't otherwise do.
It's awkward, because in a performance situation, so many factors
combine to make my playing come out sounding so different from how I
sound at home. For example, at a gig, there is energy from the rest of
the rhythm section, and from the crowd. Also, the gig is noisier,
leading me to play louder/harder. Plus I'm playing either a better
(like a grand) or worse (like my electronic keyboard) instrument than
what I have at home (a good upright), which affects my playing as well.
When I practice, I try to work on the good things I hear in my playing
that otherwise seem to happen only at gigs, so I can be more consistent
with them. Also, I try to work on the things that I hear in my playing
only at home, so I can bring them to gigs more often.
If I am learning a new tune, I play it. Sometimes I'll take one section
of it and make a vamp out of it, but most tunes I tend to play are short
enough (or have short vamps already) that I don't have to do any
additional doctoring; just playing the tune over and over (and/or
improvising over it) for a half hour or so will drill it in well enough.
There are also a few very specific things I practice.
I know that I am much more comfortable playing in some keys than others.
So I will often sit down and just play a blues or rhythm changes or
Cherokee or Stella By Starlight or whatever, in some key I am not
comfortable with. Half an hour of that and I think I've made some small
progress, but it will take much more of this before I feel I've reached
where I need to be.
Another thing I know is that my time is not steady. I turn the beat
around or otherwise screw up the timing on gigs far, *FAR* more often
than I would like. Of course, a large part of this is because I like to
take rhythmic chances; if I played it safer, I'm sure I'd be more
consistent. But that's not what I'm interested in. On the other hand,
simply practicing at home with a metronome doesn't seem to help so much,
because it doesn't account for the adrenaline that makes me rush at
gigs, or the drummer who tries to go off with me on one my rhythmic
tangents when what I really want is for him to "keep the front porch
light on" (another expression I just coined!) for me so I know where "1"
is to come back to. Still, I do sometime practice with the metronome,
sometimes one 1&3, sometimes on 2&4, figuring that the steadier I am,
the better chance of success I will have.
When I listen to recordings of myself playing (which I do fairly often -
I listen to my CD, plus a dozen or so recordings of gigs I've made), I
often hear things I don't like that I never notice when I doing: cliches
I play, excessive repetition of phrases or sections of phrases, and even
details like only playing triplets on certain beats in a bebop setting.
So I try to reproduce the settings where I heard myself doing something
I didn't like, and practice not doing that.
Finally, I like to practice free improvisation. My goals in this are to
improve my range of pianistic / orchestrational techniques (eg, not
always cplaying chord voicings in the left hand and linear solos in the
right), and also to further develop my sense of form. Sometimes, this
will lead to an idea that I think is worth holding on to, and I put my
practicing aside and continue to work on that idea to see if
it wants to become a composition.
That is how I practice.
Kent Kessler
Ellery Eskelin wrote:
>
> I learned one good way to do that from Lee Konitz. I saw a workshop he
> did in which he demonstrated a practice process of playing the melody of
> a song (MANY times), then playing a solo in whole notes alone (MANY
> times), then half notes (MANY times), quarters (MANY times), and eighths
> (MANY times). Most people at the workshop were completely underwhelmed,
> hoping instead that he would have bestowed some "hip" licks on them. I
> on the otherhand took his method to heart and tried it. It gets you away
> from licks entirely. You have to hear every note before you play it. You
> wind up playing melody instead of licks.
>
This is such great advice! As an improviser you need both voice and
vocabulary. Theory study, scales and transcription work can all help
your vocabulary. The kind of practice Konitz suggested is the stuff
that gets you inside your instrument and helps you develop a voice.
Kent Kessler
Kenny Danielson
Marc Sabatella wrote in article <5svoo7$50a$1...@cactus.verinet.com>...
>Perhaps later I'll try to post more....................
Please do, Mark. That post had "real good" stuff in it!
Kenny Danielson
<ken...@worldnet.att.net
Jeff Harrison
In article <5svoo7$50a$1...@cactus.verinet.com>, ma...@outsideshore.com (Marc
Sabatella) wrote:
> >As far as finding suitable recordings, again I have to stress these kids
> >are just babes in woods.
>
> I'm curious. Do you mean just beginning on their instrument, or just
> beginning to improvise? Do you normally teach the former or latter?
> Care to compare experiences?
Just beginning to improvise. Most start somewhere between their 2nd and
3rd year of piano so, in a way, I guess you could say both.
> I used to be of the opinion that it was best to develop technical
> facility first before learning to improvise; also, I tend to prefer
> working with students who are at a certain, shall we say, maturity
> level. As a result, most of my students could already play, and wanted
> to learn how to do something different - play jazz. What I found,
> though, was that such students often had real mental blocks regarding
> the whole idea of improvisation if they had never done it before, or, if
> they had improvised, had developed ruts that it was nearly impossible to
> break them out of.
My experience is that they all have tended to different problems. Haven't
run across any of the "I can do this" types. Some may have felt that way
to some degree but I don't give them anything they couldn't do with a good
week's worth of practice.
> Indeed, in retrospect, I'm surprised I ever became a decent jazz player
> :-) But I do think listening *a lot* to the style of music in which one
> intends to play is the single most important thing one can do in order
> to play that style convincingly.
That's unquestionable. Music is meant to be heard, of course. I find
myself lending a lot of CDs.
> The downside of this approach is that it encourages students to focus on
> "licks" and play solos that are strung together from particularly hip
> phrases they have learned this way. One still needs to get a sense for
> how one actually constructs a whole solo, with development of themes, a
> sense of order from beginning to end, and so forth.
Yes, but I'm of the opinion that playing a lick/pattern is akin to
learning words and stringing them together is like like learning to write.
Playing thematically developed solos is like writing an essay. Great jazz
players "write novels". :-)
We all go through these stages to (hopefully) reach the last. Some may do
it faster than others. Some even think they've never done it that way.
Some learn it haphazardly over time - some learn it systematically but
they all learn it.
> >All this makes me wonder what you (and the others eavesdropping) consider
> >the best/better ways to PRACTICE JAZZ. I've heard a few stories and read a
> >few books/improv-course syllabi but not as much as I'd like. So the
> >question is...
> >
> >HOW DO YOU PRACTICE JAZZ?
> Perhaps later I'll try to post more.
While we're waiting I'll try to start. But first...
> Cecil: What do you practice
> Student: I start with some scales...
> Cecil: Is that music to you?
> Student: No
> Cecil: Then why do you practice it?
[the rest of this is fiction]
Student: Because a lot of what "is" jazz music is based around them to
some degree. I feel familiarity with them allows me greater freedom. Much
of jazz's common harmonies come directly from scales. I'm just starting
with the source; I said, "I start with scales..." but that is certainly
not all I practice.
Sorry. I coundn't resist. I think Cecil is great. Maybe he never had to
play a scale to achieve his mastery. I dunno. Regardless, he *somehow* had
to figure out which notes "sounded right" to his aesthetic and which notes
didn't. Learning scales over changes is simply just one way to do that.
Just maybe just not Cecil's.
I personally find scale-running over a tune that I'm working on to be very
helpful as a starting point. I recall hearing a story about Coltrane
spending hours of practice on only ONE scale. Not simply running up and
down the notes in sequential order but doing what one pedagogue termed
"fermata practice" - that is, take on chord and just jamming endlessly
over it. Apparantly Coltrane's motivation was to simply master the
chord/scale to a much higher level - to really have the sound in his ear
and notes under his fingers. Regardless, I'd betcha he threw in quite a
few extensions regardless.
So, what about scales? Other opinions?
Jeff Harrison
Marc Sabatella
jeff...@deltanet.com_REMOVE_TO_REPLY (Jeff Harrison) wrote:
>> Cecil: What do you practice
>> Student: I start with some scales...
>> Cecil: Is that music to you?
>> Student: No
>> Cecil: Then why do you practice it?
>
>[the rest of this is fiction]
>
>Student: Because a lot of what "is" jazz music is based around them to
>some degree. I feel familiarity with them allows me greater freedom. Much
>of jazz's common harmonies come directly from scales. I'm just starting
>with the source; I said, "I start with scales..." but that is certainly
>not all I practice.
Well, I should add that Cecil's final question did not actually seem to
be rhetorical - he seemed to be genuinely trying to get the
students (myself included) to think about why we practice what
we practice.
However, here again, while I agree that *knowing* a certain number of
scales is important, this does not to me necessarily involve actually
*playing* them; at least, not playing the individual notes of the
scale in any particular order. I believe in my other post on practicing
I mentioned practicing playing in keys I am not comfortable with. This
is how I practice "scales" - actually using the scale in the context of
improvisation. Perhaps by setting up a one chord vamp in which the
scale fits, or a two chord vamp where I can alternate the scale with
another one in order to get a sense of the different resolutions
possible.
Oh, by the way, one other specific technique I practice sometimes, in
the context of whatever other practicing I am doing: double octave lines
(ie, having my left and right hands playing in unison an octave or two
apart).
>
>Sorry. I coundn't resist. I think Cecil is great. Maybe he never had to
>play a scale to achieve his mastery. I dunno. Regardless, he *somehow* had
>to figure out which notes "sounded right" to his aesthetic and which notes
>didn't. Learning scales over changes is simply just one way to do that.
>Just maybe just not Cecil's.
>
>I personally find scale-running over a tune that I'm working on to be very
>helpful as a starting point. I recall hearing a story about Coltrane
>spending hours of practice on only ONE scale. Not simply running up and
>down the notes in sequential order but doing what one pedagogue termed
>"fermata practice" - that is, take on chord and just jamming endlessly
>over it. Apparantly Coltrane's motivation was to simply master the
>chord/scale to a much higher level - to really have the sound in his ear
>and notes under his fingers. Regardless, I'd betcha he threw in quite a
>few extensions regardless.
>
>So, what about scales? Other opinions?
>
>Jeff Harrison
--------------
guy f klose
As I mentioned in a previous post, I have a lot more opinions about teaching
jazz (and I'm certainly not a stranger to having strong opnions) that I'll
cover here. But, let me first state that I am not a teacher. However, my main
jazz guru is a teacher of pretty large and respected jazz program here in
the Boston area...I've had a chance to observe, sit in, comment on and in,
his classes for the last five years, on a pretty regular basis. With that,
and with the groups I've been part of, I feel that I've been exposed to a
lot of beginner, novice and intermediate improvisers. I've also spent many
years directing a big band.
Let me also preface this whole diatribe by "In my opinion..." and "I feel
that..." This will make things a whole lot simpler for me to type.
First off, rhythm is the key. Rhythm is rarely taught, and almost never
taught well. I don't have good ideas about how to teach rhythm, since
I'm still searching.
The important part seems to be internalization. The beginnner and novice
needs to feel the groove (I noticed a few eyars ago, at a series of clinics
at an IAJE convention, that really experienced improvisors, professionals,
can sing the grooves of the pieces they play...sing well, with really
solid time) and translate ot their playing.
Beginning and novice improvisers get really hung up on things like
wrong notes, when they should be way more concerned about the rhythms they
use. Playing them with conviction (not tenatively).
I think if you were to analyze a master's solo vs. a beginner's solo
and extract the essence of the differences, you'd come up with only a
few things: playing with a good sound and all that, playing with a
good rhythmic sense and playing with "forward motion."
I can't really do justice to what little I know about forward motion,
but suffice it say that it's something more easier felt and heard
than talked about. I first learned of this concept from Hal Galper
by way of my main jazz guru. There are lots of related items:
finishing phrases more strongly than they are started, finishing
rather than starting on strong beats, playing on top of the rhythm,
etc.
So I think kids should be taught with more emphasis on a few things:
a lot of time spent on listening...I've always felt "you are what
you eat." Someone is not going to absorb the jazz language by listening
to things other than jazz. Personally, I belive in complete immersion.
I think they should swear off all other listening until a foundation
is built. Background listening is not nearly as useful as a little
bit of focused listening. For certain students that may mean transcription,
but mostly I'm referring to before they're at that step.
Singing...get them to sing. It should be second nature to an
instrumentalist. Help get rid of all anxiety about singing in front
of others (esp, in the classroom) at as early an age as possible.
Eventually, figure out that the ability to sing grooves (even
something as simple as a medium swing tune) is a key skill.
Have them scat solos before attempting to play solos...this is
a fine point: some kids want to scat beyond their instrumental
abilities. Tone them down...have them scat something they can
play.
Internalization. That's the goal. If you don't have something
inside of you, how can it possibly come out of the instrument?
Guy
--
Guy Klose
g...@world.std.com
msu...@ix.netcom.com
Ellery Eskelin wrote:
> I think transcribing has
> benifits in showing how a players mind works and how melodies are built.
> Then the idea is to quickly transfer that process to making your own
> melodies, ultimately right on the spot.
>
> I learned one good way to do that from Lee Konitz. I saw a workshop he
> did in which he demonstrated a practice process of playing the melody of
> a song (MANY times), then playing a solo in whole notes alone (MANY
> times), then half notes (MANY times), quarters (MANY times), and eighths
> (MANY times). Most people at the workshop were completely underwhelmed,
> hoping instead that he would have bestowed some "hip" licks on them. I
> on the otherhand took his method to heart and tried it. It gets you away
> from licks entirely. You have to hear every note before you play it. You
> wind up playing melody instead of licks.
This practice process is similar to another that I've found useful:
playing things MUCH slower than usual. When I bought the Aebersold
Coltrane play-along with "Impressions" on it a friend commented that he
couldn't see the point of having a slow version of the tune, since it's
so simple harmonically. But I found that playing it that way made me
slow down and approach the tune much differently than I do at the usual
breakneck speed, which seems to encourage running fast licks. And some
of that change stayed with me when I sped it up. The effect is even more
dramatic on a complex tune like "Giant Steps," which is on the Aebersold
FOUR organ set in two versions, both of them taken at an absolute crawl.
A normal mortal can actually hear the changes at that speed! Naturally
when you take it up to normal speed some harmonic generalization takes
place, but I still felt that playing it really slowly helped me hear at
the faster tempo.
Mark Sullivan
guy f klose
Not that it makes a whole lotta difference, but when I transcribe I tend
to only do brief passages. It's rare that I've done an entire solo since
I usually have what I need after, at most, a chorus or two.
About transcription, teachers seem to be split along the lines of
"notating it" vs. "not notating it." Personally, I've not always
felt like notating passages, but I do tend to memorize the passages,
mostly as a byproduct of my technique. I'll outline the technique,
since I think it is the best way to absorb and transcribe.
I make a copy of the recording on a cassette and then I listen to
it about a billion times. Somewhere around the millionth time, I'll
start to sing with the tape. I keep singing, and my goal is to eventually
be able to sing the solo, note for note, without the recording. At that
point I've found I have it memorized, can write it down, and learn to
play it on my axe. Of course, I use a 2-speed tape deck to play back
those difficult passages, and I usually find I pick up my axe long before
I have the entire solo memorized. It's a great technique for ear-training
too. When I concern myself with notation, I'll usually scribble note
heads with a general indication of rhythm, but I concentrate on exact
rhythmic notation at a later time (and sometimes it doesn't get finished :-).
The really important part of the technique is focused listening, singing
and memorizing: all of them add up to "internalization" which I think is
the most important benefit of transcription. "Focused listening" because
I don't think the average person gains anything internally by listening
half-heartedly or listening to something in the background. Singing is
important since that is how one verifies that it has been internalized.
I know from my own playing and practicing: how can I possibly play a
rhythm I hear if I can't sing the rhythm (and I still hear Carl Fontana
and Frank Rosolino solos I can't sing!).
I have a lot more opinions about teaching, but I'll put them in a
separate post.
Larry Lewicki
In article 1...@cactus.verinet.com, ma...@outsideshore.com (Marc Sabatella) writes:
<:>
[ a whole lot of interesting stuff snipped]
<:>Cecil: What do you practice
<:>Student: I start with some scales...
<:>Cecil: Is that music to you?
<:>Student: No
<:>Cecil: Then why do you practice it?
<:>
<:>--------------
<:>Marc Sabatella
<:>ma...@outsideshore.com
This has made me think about how I have been practicing. Music
is actually pretty hard in some ways - for me at least. I know
all the silly scales and chords to dozens of tunes etc. But the
concept of improvising as "melodic creation" as opposed to running
scales and then using this to build a statement is still not
one of my strong points. That being said one thing that I have
started doing to try to help me create more "songlike" improvisations
is to study songs that I like and then to try to mirror the
compositional features in solos on other sets of changes.
For example Solar (by Chuck Wayne?) simple motif C B D C (g)
Bb A C Bb
etc...
This motif gets repeated a few times then the
song ends with a 2 descending scale fragments followed
by one ascending scale fragment.
Take rhythm changes and work with a the motif (over Bb to Cm F7 say
C Bb D C
D C Eb D etc...)
Try building a statement from there over the changes to mirror the
tune. Look at other songs and how lines were created. Analyze the
development and try to mimic it in other formats.
I'm interested if anybody out there has any comments.
Larry
---
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Larry Lewicki | National Semiconductor |Opinions are mine and in *NO* |
*l...@galaxy.nsc.com | Santa Clara, CA |way represent National Semi. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
guy f klose
ma...@outsideshore.com (Marc Sabatella) writes:
>One of the rationales for notating a transcription is to have a basis
>for analysis - to see what particular scale might have been used at a
>given spot, and so forth. This is somewhat of a different goal from
>"learning the vocabulary", which is the goal I've mostly had in mind
>when discussing transcribing. Note that the analysis goal doesn't have
>anything to do with actually *playing* the solo, although it doesn't
>preculde it, either. Whereas the vocabulary goal pretty much requires
>playing, but doesn't require a whole lot of additional thought; muscle
>memory is a large part of what is being learned.
Notating vs. not-notating, to me, doesn't imply analysis or lack of
analysis. Whenever I do learn, and memorize, something from a recording,
I always try to analyze it whether it's written down or not.
On the other hand (and I think Marc might agree, from the above statements)
the real value behind listening, with or without analysis, is to improve
one's hearing and really internalize what it means to play a good solo...
time, rhythm, note choice, pacing, developing a theme, using quotes,
interaction, etc (and if you're not grasping that kind of stuff, then you're
not really listening...).
Call it "learning the vocabulary" primarily, but you've probably noticed
that I like the concept of "internalization". I feel as if I have many things
internalized that my daily practice hasn't turned into "muscle memory" yet.
>So if your goal is to learn, for example, how chromatic passing tones
>tend to be used, or in what situations the harmonic minor scale is used
>by beboppers, then you really need to write things down and then go over
>it note by note. Of course, you could also simply take the word of any
>of the various theory books that give their own opinions on these
>matters.
I've never been one to read something from a theory book and then try it,
but I suppose there are lots of people who do. I've just always felt that
since the theory came from the recordings, it made more sense to go to the
recordings first.
In fact, even though David Baker has written a ton of books on "how to
play bebop" including lots of analysis of how others applied the so-called
"bebope scale" and such, his method basically comes down to this: memorize
these 44 bebop heads (playing them in all keys, of course) and you'll have
the bebop vocabulary. It makes sense to learn these bebop heads from
recordings, versus looking them up in fake books. In fact, if you had those
44 melodies internalized to the point of being able to sing them, wouldn't
you most likely become a pretty competent sounding bebop player?
A few years ago, when I told my piano teacher that I couldn't seem to make
any sense out of the blues scale, he said this to me, "it's not about
playing the blues scale, it's about playing the blues." And then he told
me to memorize ten blues heads for the next week. Then the next, week
he had me memorize ten more. Then I understood more what both he and David
Baker were trying to teach.
So, I've got a scheme now, and I'm waiting for the right group of novices
to spring it on. It's this: I want to make a tape of a bunch of blues heads
and possible some solos, and put them in order from easiest to more difficult.
Say, for example, start with "C Jam" and work towards things like "Blues
for Alice". The idea is that the student can memorize from the tape (and
my method is, if you remember, memorize by singing first, then playing...and
don't worry about writing them down). They'd not only be learning the
vocabulary of the blues, but they'd also be memorizing lots of blues heads that
they can use in whatever jamming/playing situation they might be in.
Could do the same for bebop, too.
>Or, you could simply improvise a lot and decide for yourself what sounds
>good to you - theory and prior practice be damned. This is, of course,
>the type of approach I recommend. It does require enough knowledge of
>theory to make sure you are conscious of what you are doing so you can
>recognize what it is that seems to be working, and enough familiarity
>with prior practice to train your ears as to what sounds "appropriate".
Agreed, without a doubt.