Joined: 22 Feb 2005 Posts: 570 Location: gothenburg, sweden
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:07 am Post subject:
dkaplowitz wrote:
sumis wrote:
great topic! jazz improvisation (minus the freest free jazz stuff) has always been based on patterns.
Can you elaborate more on this assertion? I'm curious to learn more about how jazz improv has been based on patterns.
Thanks!
jazz improv is mostly based on certain idioms that the player can put to use. for instance, charlie parker defined a lot of them. it has a lot to do with different strategies of working with tension/resolution over the quintessential II, V, I progression (although that started to change during the sixties). i'd recomend any traditional jazz improv book (not wayne krantz this time around ) if you want to see what i mean. a lot of the more basic jamey abersold books (#3 and #16 for instance) or david bakers how to play bebop 1-2 will take you a long way.
if you get yourself a copy of the charlie parker omni book -- transcriptions of his solos -- you'll see that it's a qustion of repeating and rearranging idiomatic ideas. this is of course not negative in any way. on the contrary, it's a set of limitations or rules that you as an improviser choose to relate to in one way or another. a language that was once created by a group of people and that has been evolving ever sinnce through the contributions and developments within (and even outside) jazz music. think of it as an open source thing
now, this is only partly true though. jazz doesn't equal be bop. there are a lot of jazz police out there that claims that is only one way way to play real jazz. i'm not one of them, and i'm not even a jazz player. but i think my description is valid as a crude beginners info on the nature of early bop and post-bop jazz improv. the technicalities other people can explain better.
Joined: 22 Feb 2005 Posts: 570 Location: gothenburg, sweden
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:27 am Post subject:
alexkhan wrote:
James W wrote:
And in fact, I think one could claim that classical music is totally not suited to the rock music setting - one of the deepest interests of classical music is the textural nuances, the contrapuntal interests and the dynamics. This is all lost in neoclassical rock music.
I totally agree with this and I've come to the view that neoclassical is a musical dead end and that classical music and rock really don't mesh well together. If classical elements are to be added to rock, I like it done in a way that, say, Pink Floyd has done it.
To me, neoclassical style of playing sounds way more limited than blues, which can borrow the harmonic language and chord substitutions from jazz and still be blues. You have more scale tones from natural minor and harmonic minor scales compared to the pentatonic, but it's as though the neoclassical player is more boxed in to those scale notes than the blues guy playing pentatonic scales.
I agree with both of you. I can see what you mean. But one should be careful with the dreadful term "classical music". The neo classical rock stuff (Yngwie) is mainly based on baroque music. To me Stravinskij and Zappa has more in common than Bach and Stravinskij, which I think is a pretty safe asumption, but still, both Bach and Stravinskij (who died around 1969) goes for classical music. Bela Bartok (whom I just love to death, his string qaurtets are the most beatiful music, go buy!) was a huge influence on a lot of the 40's and 50's jazz players, and his music is so much closer to lets say, some of Pat Metheny's work or even Sonic Youth, than Mozart.
Neo classical rock shredders usually take some pretty melodies and simplified chord structures from Bach to make bland kitschy music! This is true even with Yngwie, although he sometimes makes effective use of his influences and he is saved by the fact that he plays the guitar quite well No seriously, Yngwie plays like a blues player, but with in harmonic minor instead of the blues scale, and that makes it all work. But still, as a composer he has produced a lot of kitsch! Uli Jon Roth did some nice stuff in the late seventies though. Many of Yngwies best moments sound like Roth on 45 rpm
If we take the idea of 'playing outside' as 'making it sound weird/unusual, then I'm pretty sure if you analysed/listened to so much music that nothing would end up sounding outside.
E.g non-diatonic devises used in classical e.g diminished 7ths, though non-distonic(and probably quite scary to original listeners), can end up sounding bland and predictable.
Probably the same with much of modern, advanced jazz. I'm sure if you analysed it there's probably some sort of method or pattern of going outside which can take the outside effect away... inwhich case it is probably best to stop thinking in terms of out/inside.
So maybe to sound really outside is to defy the theorical music and ignore the established theory. I mean, it is a question of doing something you really don’t know what is about, even if you analyse it. Even like that I presume there is still certain logic in everything you play, even if it is the weirdest stuff you can create. The problem is to get use your ear to those sounds… like it or not like it, that is the question… _________________ Javi
... maybe. But ultimately, musical analysis is about descriptivism, rather than prescriptivism... so any piece of music, yes any can be analysed.
Ok, Under a lot of people point of view in this forum, which I presume many of those have an advance knowledge of music or at least intermediate, they might like a composition just because analytically is well created and it sounds outside (or even inside); we can mention Holdsworth compositions for example (outside sound, at least for, let’s say, unfamiliar ears). But we can fall into the trap of just doing music for musicians, which I think it is wrong. Just to create music to show your capacities of analyse and create complicate structures is only going to provoke a waoouu in close circles of expert musicians. I know most of the musician would make music to sound great, not to look great in the paper! I suppose that if it sounds great outside or inside is great on the score anyway. The main aim is to provoke a “waoouu reaction” to the maximum number of people possible and to the maximum Circles of different tastes. _________________ Javi
Joined: 19 Mar 2005 Posts: 73 Location: Narberth, PA
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:06 pm Post subject:
sumis wrote:
if you get yourself a copy of the charlie parker omni book -- transcriptions of his solos -- you'll see that it's a qustion of repeating and rearranging idiomatic ideas.
I agree with you about the repetition of idiomatic ideas or in the use of motifs throughout improvising, but I don't really see what CP, or Trane, or Miles, or even Eric Dolphy did as being the same thing as a guitar player doing a pattern run where he plays the 1-3-4 fingers across the strings on the same fret, or even with changing frets. If there's no thought behind the patterns, it's pattern playing. If the improviser modifies the pattern/motif to fit the changes, to me it's a completely different animal. At least that was the distinction I was trying to make between a consummate jazz improviser and a pattern playing guitarist. But maybe we have different definitions of what pattern playing is. _________________ Less ebay, more Mel Bay
Joined: 22 Feb 2005 Posts: 570 Location: gothenburg, sweden
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:17 pm Post subject:
James W wrote:
... maybe. But ultimately, musical analysis is about descriptivism, rather than prescriptivism... so any piece of music, yes any can be analysed.
exactly. although unfortunately not everyone is of the same idea. the idioms of charlie parker have become standard idioms after his playing has been analysed. the "be bop scale", used to describe be bop improv by david baker or abersold or just about anyone nowadays, is a description of certain note choices that were introduced by certain musicians in the 40's. jazz theory has its base in a description of what the old masters did. the description or the analyzis didn't exist beforehand-
what the hell: if something sounds good to you, fine!
Joined: 22 Feb 2005 Posts: 570 Location: gothenburg, sweden
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject:
dkaplowitz wrote:
sumis wrote:
if you get yourself a copy of the charlie parker omni book -- transcriptions of his solos -- you'll see that it's a qustion of repeating and rearranging idiomatic ideas.
I agree with you about the repetition of idiomatic ideas or in the use of motifs throughout improvising, but I don't really see what CP, or Trane, or Miles, or even Eric Dolphy did as being the same thing as a guitar player doing a pattern run where he plays the 1-3-4 fingers across the strings on the same fret, or even with changing frets. If there's no thought behind the patterns, it's pattern playing. If the improviser modifies the pattern/motif to fit the changes, to me it's a completely different animal. At least that was the distinction I was trying to make between a consummate jazz improviser and a pattern playing guitarist. But maybe we have different definitions of what pattern playing is.
no, I think we have the same idea. if i'd ever say CP is a pattern player, than kill me but then again, of course he was but seriously, I think we have the same distinction. look above: you can extract patterns from most improvisers by analyzing them; but mindlessly using prefigured pattern while you're improvising is anther thing. and I guess that's your point as well.
I agree with patterns, listen to Giant Steps, my old guitar teacher said I should listen to it and pick out the stock licks. Yep they're there. Over and over. I think it was Guthrie who mentioned that he had utmost respect for the pianist on the first recording of Giant Steps.. alledgedly Coltrain had sat in his hotel for three months forumulating a set of licks to work over the chords, then turns up to record it with a music sheet for everyone else. Apparently the pianist acquitted himself well.
Patterns can be patterns in music or patterns on an instrument.. obviously patterns on the guitar are more common than anythign else as the fretboard lends itself to patterns and transposition more than a piano or saxophone. _________________ Fabulous powers were revealed to me the day I held my magic Suhr(d) aloft and said "by the power of great scale!"
... maybe. But ultimately, musical analysis is about descriptivism, rather than prescriptivism... so any piece of music, yes any can be analysed.
exactly. although unfortunately not everyone is of the same idea. the idioms of charlie parker have become standard idioms after his playing has been analysed. the "be bop scale", used to describe be bop improv by david baker or abersold or just about anyone nowadays, is a description of certain note choices that were introduced by certain musicians in the 40's. jazz theory has its base in a description of what the old masters did. the description or the analyzis didn't exist beforehand-
what the hell: if something sounds good to you, fine!
So resuming, everything that it is not a pattern but a “Common Personal Language" in a good player and sounds outside (or inside), becomes a pattern and sounding inside with time and once it is analysed.
And to sound inside is to play on an established pattern dominated by the standard musical rules, but here the problem is to sound original from the rest and not to fall in the common “sound". _________________ Javi
Joined: 10 Sep 2004 Posts: 2783 Location: Chino, CA
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:15 am Post subject:
As far as pattern playing, there are the guitar players' version of it which is more about playing shapes on the fingerboard. And then there's the pattern playing version for the keyboard and sax (and whatever else) players who rely more on stock licks and then piece them together. Many guitar players, it seems, do not think of licks, runs or patterns as a series of notes but of shapes that can be drawn and fretted on a fingerboard. Well, what can I say? I was and am still guilty of that as ever!
Personally, I don't like to listen to players who approach soloing from that perspective. It's more like the fingers leading the way than your brain directing where your fingers should go to produce a series of notes. The sounds (the lines) should be heard before they are played. I see a lot of players experimenting with shapes on the fingerboard like trying to connect the dots on a diagram and then play them to see if those shapes will sound good or not. To me, that just doesn't seem like a very creative way of approaching improvisation or even for planned-out solos.
Guthrie certainly doesn't strike me as that type of player although I've heard him explain things to people in that manner - presumably because that's the easiest way for guitar players to visually make sense of what he's showing them. People ask him: "Wow, how'd you do that? What are you doing there?" And Guthrie, the nice bloke that he is, explains it to them in terms of shapes that are being executed on the fingerboard, but my feeling is that he heard these musical ideas before he figured out how to play them. I'd like to think that with his students at BIMM, he's doing more than showing them patterns and shapes but the theory behind it all. Better to learn how to fish than have someone catch one and give it to you and then disappear. _________________ Ed Yoon
Certified Guthrie Fan-atic
BOING Music LLC - Managing Partner
.strandberg* Guitars USA
Ed Yoon Consulting & Management
Guitar Center Inc.
I personally think, and this is just my opinion, that playing diatonically --during most of your solos-- shows some level of either harmonic immaturity or, if you're doing it on purpose, some level of being brain dead (The Kenny G factor). The same goes for pattern playing. I'm impressed if someone can cleanly play some ungodly amount of notes in the space of a single beat, but not impressed enough to listen to it over and over again because it's not music, it's patterns. It's athleticism (and I guess I'm just not a big sports fan, ultimately).
Aaaaah, nope, I don´t agree at all. Diatonic playing shows no immaturity or the opposite. For me, it shows musical taste. So many of the greatest tunes ever are diatonic... Would you consider Pachelbel to be harmonically immature for composing his Canon in D, much less brain dead? Music is music. Some like diatonic sounds, some like outside sounds. I personally don´t think Mark Knopfler or Eric Johnson are harmonically immature at all. They simply chose diatonic because they like it better. The issue with diatonic tunes is that a lot of players who are not capable of writing something worthy using diatonic elements, tend to go outside to hide their innability to write a simple, good song. In that same way, many criticize the pentatonic and blues scale for being overly simple and boring, but I think it is very difficult to say much with just those few notes. Many players simply cannot say as much as, say, SRV could with it, thus using all those outside elements and looking cool and knowledgeable, when the truth is that they cannot touch people in the same way that that kid from Texas who plays by ear could.
To me, there´s nobody more mature than that musician who, using the same notes everybody uses, can make something outstanding, fresh and worth listening to. That is the reason why BB is considered by many as a master, because he can do something amazing with 3 notes, and that is so simple, that is difficult.
As for that pattern playing you mention... Well, Scott is the first who admit almost every player plays 50% practiced ideas, 50% improvised stuff. Every one uses patterns, but patterns may vary from player to player.
Fast playing is not athletic. Speed is just another element in music, it expresses certain elements, no more, no less. Would you say Spring by Vivaldi is show off or athletic? It is tasteful music, played fast, because speed helps to convey what the artists means to say. I agree that some misuse speed, but that does not mean speed itself is athletism. _________________ "Living comes much easier once we accept we´re dying"
James W said it very well. It's about what you do within the tonality you are working with. Certain players are attracted to certain sounds and others are never grabbed or interested by them. I would say that the most progressive western music explores a broader harmonic language.
It's also important to consider that the defintion of what is "out" is always changing.
When McCoy Tyner was playing with Coltrane, he developed a style that utilized new and innovative harmonic language in a jazz setting, including the use of quartal harmony, chromaticsm, and pentatonic and triadic superimposition. Nowadays, people on all instruments use these ideas....it's almost a standard sound and conception.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
) if you want to see what i mean. a lot of the more basic jamey abersold books (#3 and #16 for instance) or david bakers 
