Re[2]: This is your brain on jazz -- MRI studies of improvisation

[Travis Lund <tlund@berklee.net>]

I suppose I'll chime in on this, since this thread has grown increasingly 
interesting.  I kind of dig the way Stockhausen was phrasing the idea.  
Reminds me of an interview with Keith Richards (not an improv genius by 
any means, I know) in which he was actually using the language analogy we 
were into a bit ago when he was talking about learning to play.  The final 
quote was something like "nothing you ever play is actually yours.  
Everything you've ever heard gets absorbed and then you filter it and it 
comes out as you, but you're taking everything from something else."  To a 
certain extent I kind of agree.  There's only twelve notes, only a certain 
number of rhythmic ideas and subdivisions, really our system of western 
music is pretty finite.  (Granted you can go microtonal, but still.)  I 
guess I think of improvisation as taking what we have and placing it in a 
context that enhances the musical aesthetic.  You wouldn't play some 
ridiculously "out" shit over a standard, or use the Locrian mode over a 
regular (non-jazz-based) 12-bar blues.  We are limited by the 
aforementioned notes and rhythms, by our instruments and their 
characteristics (range, tambre, etc), by our own technical facility as 
musicians, but I think of great improvising is finding places to fit your 
sound into the greater scope of the music.  Sometimes this can be really 
free playing (letting your fingers think for you instead of making 
conscious note choices), or randomly using filters and other electronics 
(some of the weirdest noises I've ever heard came out of a Boss DD6 Delay 
box when I turned the wrong knobs on a poorly lit stage).  But in other 
situations, I think really having ears and theory, knowing your scales, 
etc. is the only way to get your ideas out quickly.  I'm not advocating 
shedding Coltrane solos note-for-note, but being able to "hear" want you 
want in your head and know exactly how to get that out of your instrument 
is invaluable.  Nothing sucks more than having a great idea on stage that 
could take the whole thing to another level, and not being able to pull it 
off.  Don't get me wrong, I'm actually pretty lousy at jazz (at least the 
harmonically complicated bop stuff), but it's something I constantly work 
on because not knowing your craft to the fullest extent possible is 
ultimately going to hold you back.  I know a lot of folks who say theory 
and such is restricting or creatively detremental, but I think if you look 
at a lot of the "legends" or "geniuses" or "innovaters" out there, you'll 
see a fairly consistent trend of them really knowing their shit.  
Disclaimer: this is not an attack on anyone else's thoughts on or 
methodology for improv, I'm just calling it how I see it.  If you're 
making beautiful music that satisfies both self and audience, I don't 
really care how you're doing it, because clearly whatever it is is working 
:)  Many apologies for the lengthy rant.   
Peace,
-Travis
---------------------------------------
Original E-mail
From: andy butler [akbutler@tiscali.co.uk]
Date: 04/15/2008 12:15 PM 
To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
Subject: Re: This is your brain on jazz -- MRI studies of improvisation



Krispen Hartung wrote:
 
> However, I have to say that much earlier on as I was learning to 
> improvise, I had to prime the well of creative waters with my technical 
> knowledge of phrases, scales, phrases, theory, etc. It was sort of 
> improvisational mimicry...randomly regurgitating pre-conceived ideas to 
> simulate free improvisation (many listeners wouldn't be able to tell the 
> difference).  That only occurred for a short time and soon became a 
> detriment (constraint) more than a benefit; once the well was primed, I 
> threw all the prior knowledge aside and was able to spontaneously create 
> the ideas on my own.
>  

Somewhere there's a Stockhausen quote about imitation coming before 
innovation.
Probably from a book that was in our local library before it burned down, 
so
no way to trace it.
I think there was even an intermediate phase of "transformation" (taking 
the imitated stuff 
and changing it).

So it seems for most musicians, it starts with imitation of others 
(perhaps using 
transcription), and then may progress to working variations on other 
peoples 
ideas before ending up as innovation.

The other side of the coin might well be those who innovate because they 
lack the
ability to imitate. 

andy butler