Free Improv Teaching Techniques
soapy10999
Anyone out there ahve any teaching methods, exercises, thought on the
subject of Free Improvisation?
I'm writing a class workbook for the Ntional Guitar Workshop and I'm pooling
together some ideas. Any suggestions will be credited to you in the book and
will be much appreciated too!
Please email me through my website
Thanks,
--
Chris Buono
www.chrisbuono.com
Ivan
the Bluenote newsgroup on this topic. Personally, I have no clue what
"free jazz" is. I have a hard enough time learning the regular
stuff...LOL
Ivan
"soapy10999" <soapy...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<Tp2dndArB_7...@comcast.com>...
David Kotschessa
> Do a google search on "free jazz". You'll find quite a few threads in
> the Bluenote newsgroup on this topic. Personally, I have no clue what
> "free jazz" is. I have a hard enough time learning the regular
> stuff...LOL
>
> Ivan
Also look for "harmolodic." Found some old threads on this.
I like Joe Finn's definition:
>Harmolodics is the melody times the harmony divided by the time
signature
>over the square root of the tempo plus the number of guys on the
bandstand.
>.....joe
Ornette's been trying to explain the harmolodic concept for years.
He's having a hard time still.
I think it's important to have a good ear. Free improv doesn't mean
playing random note patterns on your guitar. That's just garbage.
I've people do it. "We have an avant garde jazz band!" Bunch of kids
who don't know how the **** to play making noise. People that
understand the harmolodic concept seem to have an an extremely
developed ear.
-Dave
josh
well versed in free jazz yourself. If i ome off to siplistic it isn't
meant to condescend to you.
Ok this is going to take a bit.
Some thoughts on free jazz:
Free jazz is not a genre as much as a marketing label. Most people
try to define this music by what it isn't rather than what it is.
Most people are not aware that there are various schols of free jazz.
Roscoe Michell is not Pharoah Sanders, Blood Ulmer is not derek Bailey
etc.
If you take as history that this trend in music came about in the
sixties when Academia encroached into the jazz world, and cats like
Braxton and Ornette were learning about jazz and classical and
philosophy, and that they were being exposed to a lot of the more
modern postwar paradigms of thinking. Then you have to realize that
each person is finding his (her) own way to approach the
deconsrtruction or re-evaluation of basic preconcieved aesthetic
values attached to music (or art in general).
Generally speaking, American avante garde could basically be divided
(at serious risk of oversimplification) into two sections: New York
and Chicago. Most people are familiar with NY scene. Guys like Ceci
Taylor and Ornette and Albert Ayler are generally names that people
think of as "free jazz". Well I don't know what they were playing was
"free" (Homework assignment - listen to Free Jazz the album by
Ornette. Mark down the times when significant structural events
happen. hmmmm. Check out Cage's Piano Conert. hmmm) but they each
had distinctly different approaches (not styles but structurally and
philosophically different). They all basically adhered to the standard
bebop instrumentation and most still reatin at least a vestigial head
solos head format(not so much with Cecil, he uses long forms).
With the Chicago scene they stretched with more of the elements.
Orchestration was more varied (accordian, contrabass clarinet, exotic
percussion etc). There were more liberties taken with form and
structure.
Are you going to approach all of this music?
For me, the elements of music that I am working on to be able to
handle some of the more freer situations I've found myself in are
Listening to the Repertoire:
If you wanna play this kind of music, you should be listening to a lot
of this music, as well as all other music (North African chant,
Gamelan, TomWaits, the Boredoms, Karnatic, etc.)
You should also be familiar with the 20th century classical repertoire
especially
Pierrot Lunaire
Rite of Spring
Ionisation
All of Webern's stuff (it fits on 3 disks!)
Stockhausen's Klavierstucke
John Cage's stuff (1st thru 3rd constructions etc>)
Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima
Ligeti's Lux Aeterna
Sound:
This to me is the most important part. You need to be able to create
a kaliedoscopic amount of timbres. As a guitarist, even going straight
into the amp, you can access plenty of sounds (derek bailey is a
master of this). We can also add effects to make sound even more
pliable.
Rhythm:
This is another element in music that is grossly ignored. I am
currently working on odd number groups, both within the beat and
across the bar. The key here is the ability to either layer a
different feel on top of a pre-existing feel, or the obliteration of a
groove altogether.
Ear training/Harmony:
Different ways of ordering the 12 tone aggregate, and hearing it.
This is generally where people (read-nonfreejazzers) latch onto the
music. Ornette ues simple harmonies against each other to creat
dissonance (Db blues licks over F blues). Cecil and Dolphy approach
their stuff harmically. With Albert Ayler, pitch doesn't really
matter.
Ensemble Playing
Since most free jazz playing (at least the music I am into listening
and performing) is gestural, exercises can be made to practice this.
Any idea will do, just pick something and play.
This music is basically all encompassing. It can be anything and
nothing. I think the only way you can educate yourself about this
music is to listen to the stuff, read the books (braxton's stuff any
modern philosophy etc) and try to develop yourself as a person. Then
to see what develops
That being said I wouldn't mind seeing a NAtional Guitar workshop book
The "guitar styling of Deek Bailey"
If youd be sure to put these chords in:
e-8
B-0
G-6
D-0
A-6
E-0
and
e-6
B-6
G-0
D-4
A-0
E-4
Hope that helps
Josh
Charlie Robinson
playing random note patterns on your guitar. That's just garbage.
I've people do it. "We have an avant garde jazz band!" Bunch of kids
who don't know how the **** to play making noise. People that
understand the harmolodic concept seem to have an an extremely
developed ear.
-Dave
>>
---------------------------------------
I've been lucky enough to study and perform with at different times two members
of Ornette's group Charlie Haden and Don Cherry and also Cecil Taylor.You are
right in saying that the ear is the most important thing, in Charlie Haden's
approach as a bassist it was just about the only thing. He said that Ornette
had complex charts which included basslines but for the most part he didn't
play them preferring to make up his own part. But both Don and Cecil had
systems that they developed and used that were quite complex.
Charlie Robinson Jazz Guitarist, Composer
You can hear me online at: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/robinsonchazz
or http://www.soundclick.com/bands/rmmgj_music.htm
David Kotschessa
> I've been lucky enough to study and perform with at different times two members
> of Ornette's group Charlie Haden and Don Cherry and also Cecil Taylor.You are
> right in saying that the ear is the most important thing, in Charlie Haden's
> approach as a bassist it was just about the only thing. He said that Ornette
> had complex charts which included basslines but for the most part he didn't
> play them preferring to make up his own part. But both Don and Cecil had
> systems that they developed and used that were quite complex.
>
From what I recall about a description I heard once, it could be
analysed by saying player A plays a part, and to him, he's playing the
3rd of a major chord. Player B hears the same note, but to him, it's
the 13th of a dominant 7th chord, so he plays a 3rd. Something like
that anyway. It's a sort of constant reharmonization process based on
what you think you hear, except, there really isn't harmony, just
melody... The people doing this, who are of course, ultra-scary-top
notch players, aren't really thinking about this of course.
Something like that anyway. It's still over my head.
-Dave
Charlie Robinson
3rd of a major chord. Player B hears the same note, but to him, it's
the 13th of a dominant 7th chord, so he plays a 3rd. Something like
that anyway. It's a sort of constant reharmonization process based on
what you think you hear, except, there really isn't harmony, just
melody... The people doing this, who are of course, ultra-scary-top
notch players, aren't really thinking about this of course.
Something like that anyway. It's still over my head.
-Dave
>
--------------------------------
You are in the ballpark with that type of thinking but it is more natural than
that. Don used to point at notes that he had written on the blackboard and
say"that's not music" then he would blow his horn and say "that's music". But
if you have a need to analyze some of it in terms of Western harmony the
situation that you described could be expressed this way: Player A hears the
note as the third of a chord so he plays Cmaj. 7 player B hears it as a 13th so
he plays off of G13. What has happened is a polytonal relationship has been set
up: Cmaj.7/ G13. But these references to traditional harmony are better for
analyzing or justifying some of the things that happen in that type of
improvisation. I don't know of anyone who actually thinks about those things
while playing the music. But there are numerous techniques that guys like Don,
Ornette, Cecil and others used to get the types of sounds and feelings that
they wanted. It would take a lot more space than is provided here to describe
them all.
David Kotschessa
> You are in the ballpark with that type of thinking but it is more natural than
> that. Don used to point at notes that he had written on the blackboard and
> say"that's not music" then he would blow his horn and say "that's music". But
> if you have a need to analyze some of it in terms of Western harmony the
> situation that you described could be expressed this way: Player A hears the
> note as the third of a chord so he plays Cmaj. 7 player B hears it as a 13th so
> he plays off of G13. What has happened is a polytonal relationship has been set
> up: Cmaj.7/ G13. But these references to traditional harmony are better for
> analyzing or justifying some of the things that happen in that type of
> improvisation. I don't know of anyone who actually thinks about those things
> while playing the music. But there are numerous techniques that guys like Don,
> Ornette, Cecil and others used to get the types of sounds and feelings that
> they wanted. It would take a lot more space than is provided here to describe
> them all.
>
Oh, well certainly they don't think about it. This is a sort of
post-analysis. As with "regular" jazz, a proficient musician wouldn't
really be thinking about these things while improvising, but would
likely have an understanding of them. I think it's a very evolved
music. The people involved have, I think, almost super-natural
abilities when it comes to listening and hearing. By "listening" I
mean listening to what's going on around you, and by "hearing" I mean
placing it in a context, as in a chord or key or melody.
The thing that bothers me sometimes, which is sort of what I'm trying
to get at here, is that there are people who think that "free jazz" or
"harmolodic" music is something you can just "do." People seem to
think "I think I'll just bypass all this ear training and music theory
crap and play random notes with people! Yippie! Now I'm playing free
jazz!."
It might just barely work as performance art, and if you're lucky, you
might make some music. (Even a blind squirrel gets an acorn one in
awhile). But it's not jazz. I've seen people try it and I want to
squash them.
To me, this music is sort of "arrived at" rather than taught. I
almost said "This can't be taught," but I want to think that that's
not true. It might be a fun exercise to get together with somebody,
and just play single notes, not based on any chord progression, and
try to listen to what they are playing, and then play what comes to
you. It might be a good way to free up your thinking for "normal"
jazz playing.
One of my all time favorite albums, for years, has been Ornette's
"Sound Museum." As you probably already know, he recorded the album
twice, released both copies. This sort of helps you figure out what
the essense of the music really is. It's absolutely beautiful music,
as ugly as it is.
-Dave
Charlie Robinson
<< Oh, well certainly they don't think about it. This is a sort of
post-analysis. As with "regular" jazz, a proficient musician wouldn't
really be thinking about these things while improvising, but would
likely have an understanding of them. >>
-------------------------------------------------
Some of it is thought of beforehand during the construction of the format of
the tunes. In Cecil's music there are definite structures that are improvised
upon. In this type of "free" jazz you have to know what the structures are (but
not necessarily the particular method that went into their construction) in
order to improvise upon them. The element of hearing is crucial because the
music is continually moving from structure to structure without the guide posts
of set numbers of bars as is used in traditional improvisation with chord
progressions as the foundation.
But in Charlie Haden's case with Ornette he only reacted to what he was hearing
at the time and played things that he thought would fit. He said that he would
ask Ornette what he was doing and that Ornette wouldn't tell him. I think that
this is an indication that he (Ornette) wanted things to be spontaneous and was
satisfied with the things that Charlie was playing.
David Kotschessa
> << Oh, well certainly they don't think about it. This is a sort of
> post-analysis. As with "regular" jazz, a proficient musician wouldn't
> really be thinking about these things while improvising, but would
> likely have an understanding of them. >>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Some of it is thought of beforehand during the construction of the format of
> the tunes. In Cecil's music there are definite structures that are improvised
> upon. In this type of "free" jazz you have to know what the structures are (but
> not necessarily the particular method that went into their construction) in
> order to improvise upon them. The element of hearing is crucial because the
> music is continually moving from structure to structure without the guide posts
> of set numbers of bars as is used in traditional improvisation with chord
> progressions as the foundation.
>
> But in Charlie Haden's case with Ornette he only reacted to what he was hearing
> at the time and played things that he thought would fit. He said that he would
> ask Ornette what he was doing and that Ornette wouldn't tell him. I think that
> this is an indication that he (Ornette) wanted things to be spontaneous and was
> satisfied with the things that Charlie was playing.
>
Sounds like I need to get into Cecil more. I love listening to this
stuff even if I can't play it.
Well Charlie, I don't know if we helped the original poster at all,
but this certainly has been interesting. Thanks for passing on your
knowledge. From Charlie, Don, and Cecil to you, then to us, it's a
treasure. This subject doesn't seem to come up often, and I'm glad it
did.
-Dave
danstearns
attributes, and sometimes a concept like competency just doesn't do
them justice... I mean year in and year out the conservatories and the
universities push countless competent musicians out their doors, but
so what? There are only so many school band teachers and cruise ship
gigs out there... give me magic, give me someone with something
special to say!
In one sense I think it's all music and either you've got something to
say or you don't, but I also think the ability to make your
imagination manifest is a more rarified and treasured gift than some
of our more pragmatic faculties like good hands and even good
ears--after all, physiology is a somewhat biased affair!
If you believe there's hope then trust your instincts... trust your
physicality... trust your imagination and work your ass off, good
things will happen...
dkots...@yahoo.com (David Kotschessa) wrote in message news:<4589696c.03041...@posting.google.com>...