help me to start learning to improvise.

frankus

@viz not sure I agree - a lot of the solo parts in classical pieces were traditionally improvised. What we have today is learned pieces transcribed by paid people in the audience scribbling down notes as they were played... over time people have simply moved to learning those - hence the idea of different transcriptions of the same piece.

This idea that musical brilliance has to have some kind of foundation in theory is clearly not true or else what is Derek Paravicini? Talk to him about modes and you'll get echolalia - he'll repeat your question, because he doesn't understand it. "what do you think about modes?" ... answer: "what do you think about modes".. play him Thelonius Monk and he'll nail it first time, despite it's unconventionality.

Musical theory is nothing but the explanation of sounds people have liked. HAVE LIKED. Anyone improvising from this stand point is crippled. Limited to believe that what people WILL LIKE is immutably linked to what people HAVE LIKED .. that's not art that's craftsmanship - reproduction in the style of, it's not originating anything. It's slightly different to blues musicians lifting and stealing licks because the rules of music theory don't acknowledge rhythm and accent - so create more musical howlers (that should be right).

The map is not the territory. It's a systematisation of reality that will ALWAYS require adaption. any systematisation of music belongs firmly in that camp.

You'll meet some martial artists who say it's all about the basics (they're equivalent) they drill students to march up and down punching left and right and kicking... they don't spar all in, they don't learn combinations, they're range is crippled because it did not begin with reality...

The philosopher Søren Kierkegaard put it best: “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

to do that requires constant vigilence in the present to determine the sense of a thing and if it's working and that means being rules light.

viz

I basically agree with both of you. I think it can be anything between helpful and a hindrance, via irrelevant, depending on the individual and his/her baseline and goals. I'm sure lots of music was composed in the head or the heart and was only written down to hand out to the orchestra. But on the other hand, learning theory can obviously be incredibly useful for unpicking parts, communicating, opening possibilities, and stimulating ideas. It's not necessary, or sufficient, but it can be a string to the bow. It's like any art; knowledge can help the creative process, but shoving formulae and components to the detriment of artistry down someone's throat is obviously unhelpful, like your martial arts comparison @frankus. Thankfully music theory as taught isn't at all centred around scales obviously. It's got aural, rhythm, transposition, composition, etc etc. In fact scales and arps aren't actually part of 'theory' in classical training, they're part of practising and exercises.

frankus

I just think that creatively and motivationally the most important things to any musician is the ears and the heart.

I spent a few years on mechanics, cyclic picking - who uses that these days?!

As for scales, I do not rate them - people obsess over them (I've obsessed over them) on the guitar because the string pattern on a guitar  4th, 4th, 4th, major 3rd, 4th -- limits moveability and creates confusing patterns - easier to transpose keys than it is to find the repeated notes on the fretboard...

scale patterns become a crutch for visually minded people to dodge the avoid notes.. rather than learn all the notes have a least one melifluous place in any bar of music.

arpeggios approximate melodies, like Tuck Andress' robot bass player - arpeggios can be used to knock out some cod-melody.

Improvisation (which we're talking about) originated in classical music and was defined largely by key AND in jazz where it was defined by the song melody - it's even been speculated that the improv was originally intended to simply echo the song melody... but it became more entertaining for self-taught players to drift off and build tension until they dipped back into the moelody creating relief... (not the same as the theory of dissonance and consonance as this involved rhythm)... over time it's become an art to drift and lead the listener astray only to find out they've not been...

You can't learn puns from a dictionary - you need to hear one, be amused by it and experiment to find more -- you can use a dictionary for that if you like, butt donut bee fueled, watt may exit were kiss aural perception AKA experience.

I think in essence my displeasure is pointed at intellectualism not theory... an intellectual doesn't work all the modalities at the same time with a humble view of themselves, whereas a genuine practitioner will know their failings... if they've been taught to.

The internet is packed with music theory pundits but far fewer doers... we enjoy listening to the doers -- so make more of them and fewer of the theory pundits.

viz

Well yes. Can't really argue with the ear and heart bit. In fact I completely agree it has to come from the heart first and foremost, otherwise why are we doing it? We're not sportsmen, we're artists.

frankus

Um... know many sportsmen?

it's worth knowing this - the nerves in the heart work almost exactly like neurons... and there's neurons in the gut, these work faster than the neurons in the brain as they are wired straight to the limbic system... trained actions with emotional triggers can be called quicker...

there are fewer of them too..

People use hesitance to detect lies, also other evidence of conscious thought processes - eyes left means the brain is "creating" eyes down usually means someone is drawing from emotions...

In sport, music pretty much everything the brain is bypassed for the best results. The role of the brain is as educator of the body, then like any mentor it needs to shut the fuck up and stay the hell out

Phil_aka_Pip

Unlike @viz, i would like to disagree, but without any inflammatory terminology.

1. Equally important are the ability (technique if you will) to express what you feel, and the ability to communicate to the listener what you intend (understanding of the way in which a musical statement is likely to be interpreted, if you will). In the latter, if you intend to express a certain emotion, you at least need to have some idea of what musical constructs are likely to convey that emotion. At the root (s'cuse pun) of these I would suggest lies theory and practical things such as scales & arps. Ergo there are no "most important things" as @frankus alleged.

2. so frankus practiced a lot of cyclic picking? Good, he's learned (hopefully) something I haven't, and something that will be useful if he ever finds the need for it. He may well have generally improved his picking agility on the way. The "who uses that these days" is of no consequence unless he was only practicing cyclic picking as a means to an end, whereas I know he did it as an end in itself and enjoyed the journey, because it was none other than he who recommended me to read Mastery.

3. scales.  It's  not a question of dodging the "avoid" notes, if you've programmed those motions into your motor system you're more likely to hit notes that make sense when you're winging it. and if you've studied them enough then you'll also know the effect an "outside" note will have and can use it to good creative effect.

4. if arpeggios approximate melodies, then that's a reason to practice them, you're halfway there even before you've thought about jamming. One of the things we like about good improvisers is that without any apparent preparation they can come out with stuff that sounds like a tune. There's improvisation around a tune, to which frankus referred, but there's also boiling a tune with its harmony down to a basic chord progression and building something different on top of it (including shifts in the rhythm). Either way you can end up with a different tune.

on to the 1.04 post: I guess this is where gut feel comes in. ... if eyes down means someone is drawing from emotions then all shoegazer music ought to be highly emotional

frankus

What I learned from that long long lesson learning cyclic picking was that I have the ability to set down a tool when someone I respect (in this case Justin Sandercoe in a one-to-one lesson)  when told it was worthless, regardless of the years of investment I'd placed in that idea.

That is the most brilliant thing I learnt from the book Mastery is to have the ability to admit hard earned mistakes, admit them quickly, feel the sting or wasted time, get over it and start seeing what it has taught. In this case it's to keep checking in with reality.

When you're really winging it, you simply slide up a fret or down a fret (as that's all there is to correcting a "wrong note").

Earlier on I talked about a shredder we had in a Jazz and Beyond course at IGF with Dario Cortese and I mentioned the dude was throwing shapes all over the fretboard and shredding the hell out of the guitar - it sounded crap... when he was threatened and told to slow down and play the notes he heard ... his playing became listenable, it developed melodies and space AND these notes weren't part of a 3 notes per string or CAGED system because his span became too large for scales... he had some idea of a comfy position but he was following the sound in his head.

It is too easy with scales and arps for the tail to wag the dog and that puts an impediment in playing the music in your head.

Phil_aka_Pip

Have you ever played a "wrong" note in a situation where there's a riff going on behind you, so there's a chance next time round to repeat it (as if you meant it) but you've also had a second or two to consider where it might take you and how it might modify the riff? Sometimes you don't need to "correct" it at all, it's a happy accident that can get you into changing key or throwing an extra colourful chord in ... I like it when that happens

viz

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Have you ever played a "wrong" note in a situation where there's a riff going on behind you, so there's a chance next time round to repeat it (as if you meant it)

You have just defined Jazz.

frankus

there's loads of ways of swinging it and often the mistakes are what make a song... I remember Seth Govan being put on the spot to play a solo and rather than play a solo at a pace he didn't want to, he changed the bassline to another song (at the same bpm) and kept playing it - after two bars the band started playing the tune he'd changed to and he dodged a solo

a lot of Jazz is tighter than a ducks arse... for the most part people who bang on about the wrong notes are talking about a different generations definition... if I compared Meshuggah to the Rolling Stones - that's the kind of discounting that's going on.

GuyBoden

viz said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Have you ever played a "wrong" note in a situation where there's a riff going on behind you, so there's a chance next time round to repeat it (as if you meant it)

You have just defined Jazz.

Playing improvised Jazz at a high standard is beyond the ability of 99% of guitarists.

viz

Yeah I know really I was just joshing.

koneguitarist

Play along to songs you don't know. Turn radio on and keep playing along, soon you will find new things that work or don't !