teaching/learning improv

[tryingtolivethelife]

now, I have been learning to improvise for just over six years... well as long as I've been playing trumpet. It seems all I really like to practice is scales and modes and figuring out sounds/learning solos. My thought is; the ideal thing, as I've been told, is to be able to look ahead musically at what you will play. To play a melody or something along that line, not just scales and arpeggio's(I say along that line because breaks and such are not usually melodic). Some even say you should be able to sing the solo you would play. Like to always know whats coming next and not sort of just BS through changes. Well then, why is it then improvisers are taught to play on a scale or a few scales to start with. And how come nobody ever seems to have a begginer sing a solo and the transcribne it? How can we be expected to play with melodic thought when from the beggining people tell you, "play this scale here, or this chord means this mode" Why not, ask the student what their ear hears over the chord, have them sing "their" safe notes. And where they here the resolution and the transfer that to the instrument. I guess I'm trying to say, if improve is taught the common... here is a penta tonic scale way, the scales you know and your ability to navigate a chord change becomes whats key. And your limit. If you were taught how to match the pitches in your head, perhaps you would be a better, true improviser. Thoughts anyone?

(I re-posted this over here, as it wasn't getting much responce in the pedagodgy section, I guess most of the cats their are classicaly based??) There are some really good relplys there aswell though.

Chuck

[_Don Herman]

I think a good ear (or, good ear training) and knowing the scales (I don't, BTW, just faking it by ear so far...) is needed, or at least important enough to pursue.

Developing and using your ear allows you to follow (key word) the melody and chord changes in a pleasing manner, i.e. not hitting too many wrong notes. Learning the "pleasing" notes, as you said, to fit into the chords, or how to wind from "bad" to "good" notes in a graceful resolution makes for some good improving, imo. (I now and then settle on a note just off the chord, maybe from the previous chord, and hold it a beat or two before resolving to a note in the chord. Sounds neat at the end of a piece, or phrase, and people generally like it. Once they figure out that I am, eventually, going to play a "right" note! -- One hopes! ) Your ear will also guide you back into the melody line, or main chord progression, as you wind down your solo. I use my ear to play decants all the time, usually trying to pick something a third or fourth up and playing along over the sopranos (just to make 'em jealous ).

Now, a good ear won't help you play a new piece, or one you don't know well. Nothing like going along, getting deep in the grove, and having the chord progression suddenly head someplace you weren't quite ready for, leaving you (OK, me! ) high and dry while wailing away on one of those "bad" notes... In this situation, it helps to know the chords so you can look at the music and figure out, at least generally, where to go. As I mentioned, I don't know chords -- trying to make more time for Chase Sanborn's Jazz Tactics (a fantastic book, btw) and another book or two to learn them (and many other things, natch).

For me, reading and hearing come together when you can look at the notes and hear the song in your head. My teacher can do this; I'm still learning to crawl, and it's a ways 'til I walk. Same thing for chords: being able to look at a chord progression and hear the notes as they pass should lead to the ability to put what you want in that progression (i.e., improvise well). Top Morse code readers hear a group and write down the word. They don't consciously hear dit-dit-dit and think, "oh, that's an S" -- they hear dit-dit-dit dah-dah-dah dit-dit-dit as a gestalt and write down SOS. When you (or I) can look at notes, or a chord, hear it in your mind, and play without consciously going through the "oh, that note on the third line is a B" visual translation process, you'll have arrived. Stated another way, I think a worthwhile goal is to go from "see the note, mentally figure out what it is, hear/play the sound" to "see the note, hear/play the note" without the extra conscious translation step.

Dunno' if this makes sense, or helps, but if nothing else it gets me one post closer to catching Quad C in quantity of posts...

Toodles - Don
_________________
Don Herman/Monument, CO
"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music." - Aldous Huxley

[Nicholas Dyson]

I think that the problems inherent in learning to improvise are not in what scale/mode to use, it's in the application. I think the reason people start with the pentatonic/blues scale is because the application of those scales is RELATIVELY easy when comparing them to things like bebop scales, alt dominants, etc.

I also think if you talked to Dizzy, Clifford, Lee Morgan, etc. etc. etc. they would say... "bebop scale? whatchu talkin bout boy! Get up and play that horn!"

You're obviously a competent enough musician to question the pedagogy, so what I would tell you is this... apply that questioning thing to yourself and discover how YOU LEARN. Then you can apply the knowledge that's out there better to your own playing and learning style better.

I hope this helps a bit, and please take a minute to post about your growth with the idea that we all might learn something and be able to grow more, or better by your experiences!!!
_________________
Nicholas Dyson
Ottawa, Canada

[PH]

The key here is one of perspective. Learning chords and scales and playing from a musical space isn't an either/or kind of deal. However, lots of people these days are teaching improv and they have never really learned to improvise themselves. That is very tough to do. Knowing how to do something gives an indispensible perspective on teaching/learning that thing.

Anyhow, it is all about balance and perspective. Chords, scales, and theory are just tools and somehow many teachers and learners have gotten the impression that they are the core issues of jazz improv. They aren't. Anyhow, in an attempt to help put these things in perspective I am going to paste a post here that I just made on the "Jazz Routine" thread. I hope it clarifies my views.

Pat

>I think that most everyone who is serious about improvising works on most of these things every day. It is up to each individual (or their teacher) to determine how much attention you give to each area and what specific things you work on in each area. I like to rotate the materials in each area every week or two. For MOST people the order I am listing is the order of importance/need.

Also, notice that the first five items are things that can be done away from the trumpet. You can dramatically increase your jazz development by devoting the rest segments of your current practice routine to jazz work (listening, keyboard, singing, etc.). I also practice singing, and mental practice of tunes, licks in 12 keys, etc. away from the horn (stuck in traffic, in the airport, in the shower, etc.). This means that most of us can dramatically increase our jazz abilities without taking time away from our other trumpet stuff.

Listening
Transcribing (NOT always writing down, however)
Tune Memorization (should mostly be done by ear from recordings-use fakebooks to affirm what you learn by ear)
Jazz keyboard practice
Scat-singing (with play-alongs or over the top of regular jazz recordings)
Chord/scale studies
Licks in 12 keys (ii- V7, pentatonics, fourths, etc.)
Playing with play-alongs
Playing tunes with only a metronome

This assumes that you are also playing pretty regularly with other people. If not, the playing with play-alongs moves way up in importance. Play-alongs are a great practice tool and ideally are a complement to making music with people for people. <

[tryingtolivethelife]

PH,
I don't understand the point about people who haven't really learned to improvise teaching. I see this of course as a nesisary reality, there are very few players out there who really "know how". I mean if your talking skill level, it would be nice to have been able to get improv. lessons from Bird or Trane but seeing as thats not possable and even when they were alive more than highly unlikley... the responsibility of teaching improvisation falls on less acomplished musicians. I have always felt that after learning the basics, all the "teaching" of improv. is basically useless. Besides getting pointers on what different sounds to try out, (dorian instead of harmonic minor or using a " BeBop Scale "...) all the work has to be done by the player. I very much agree with the things you posted besides the origional comment. I ask you, who should teach improv then? Wynton Marsalis?? Chick Corea? Sonny Rollins? Whop else, can "really improvise"?

regards,
Chuck

[PH]

I think that it is more a question of finding a teacher who understands the process of learning to improvise and that usually means someone who has been involved in a non-superficial way with the process of improvising. It may not be someone who is a GREAT improviser, but it usually has to be someone who has personally made some of the key breakthroughs...to a point where jazz improvisation is more than just a set of "rules".

You are absolutely right when you say that every developing improviser (and actually every musician) makes most of their progress on their own. We are all our own teachers, like it or not. Also, between the point where we acquire tools and information and the point where we are able to create beautiful music of our own lies a stage where we must learn from role models. This would definitely include modeling our playing on great players that we love and their recordings. However, in the jazz tradition this has also included modeling from living breathing people by personally knowing a real person who is involved in the same personal quest as the learner at a deeper level of experience.

We not only absorb the sound of the music from this kind of mentor, but we also observe and absorb their attitude toward their art and their audience and the way they work to solve problems and develop their skill and expression. THIS is the stage that is so often missing today when people learn jazz improvisation from non-playing teachers.

Another thing, in regards to the original point of the first post is that we need to diferentiate between practice/development activities and actual improvisation. Too often (especially among non-playing teachers) acquiring skills and information is presented as the goal, when in reality those are tools that are supposed to equip the player to enter the realm of improvisation and be applied with an attitude of experimentation, discovery, and adventure.

[BADBOY-DON]

AMEN...NICK,BILL, AND QUAD-C!!

[tryingtolivethelife]

PH
I'm still confused, so the idea is to find an actual "player" to learn form? Not simply somebody who will teach you theory? How many teachers do you know that posses all the knowledge nessisary to improvise and chose not to? It seems silly that such a pesron would exist. Or does the ability to actually improvise come from the daily practice? And who would you indorse then as a teacher besides Jamey Abersol? I would also like to say that I have met alot of great players who are either horrible teachers or too big of *****s to help a younger player out. I found the first time I picked up the trumpet I was able to "improvise". At what point is it non-superficial? Is it skill PH that you are refering to as what defines if someone can actually improvise or not? I thought improvisation was spontanius playing... creative thought on cue. How good does it have to be, or how many hours a day make it good enough. As for the idea of putting a tune through twelve keys... If this s so important. Why then didn't Bach write the same melodies in the well tempored clavier? instead of different melodies in the different keys? Wouldn't he have been showing musicality if he simply rehashed everything through the circle of 4ths a few times? I undestand the desire to have key now longer be a limitation or a restriction but why not simply play in different keys, why the same thing? We all learn to transpose but I never understood where in imporovisation it becomes usefull. But I digress, I simply wanted to hear what everyone had to say about the idea of learning to use ones natural ear before using imporsed harmonics (scales and arpegios)... but perhaps when my transformation becomes complete, when I cross the treshold and am then a real player I will know all the answers and not have to ask questions...

appologies,
Charile