Improvisation - the role of feedback

[JeffD]

I found this on the interweb -

"In the opinion of Jeff Pressing, a psychologist who has studied improvisation extensively, vocal improvisers lack the benefit of "feedback redundancy" that instrumental improvisers have. All improvisers use feedback from their playing in order to judge what to play next; the more feedback that exists, the easier the improviser's task is. For the instrumentalist, aural, visual, proprioceptive (i.e. body awareness), and touch feedback work in tandem. For the vocalist, however, only aural and proprioceptive feedback are available. Pressing uses this discrepancy to account for violin improvisation being more difficult than sax improvisation, and vocal improvisation more difficult still: "For every first-rate scat-singer in the world", he writes, "there must be 500 talented jazz saxophonists".

[catmandu2]

I generally agree. IME, the patterns and visual references we use for stringed instruments can become so rote that it's easy to allow the fingers--or muscle memory--to influence harmonic patterns and note choice. Comparatively, although horn playing--especially woodwind--also entails fingering patterns, they are much less uniform (e.g., with strings we shift our patterns around to achieve chromatics, yet the patterns can remain the same; with woodwinds each pattern is different). When I play woodwinds, I find the experience much closer to vocalisation and tend to think more "conceptually" or intuitively harmonic rather than visually or patternistically cued. I exeperience horns to be one step removed, as it were, from vocalisation, and strings one step further--roughly

[Jim Garber]

As much as I can understand the above quote, I am not sure why Pressing says that violin improv is more difficult than sax or any other instrument. Assuming one is trained correctly, the player has the same feedback from aural and body awareness and muscle memory than any other instrument.

I am not a seriously experienced or trained singer but I would think there is some level of feedback there as well. I would surmise that tho it may be less obvious a singer knows what notes and rhythms he/she is singing (maybe not by name but by feeling).

Hmmmmm.... maybe I am not quite sure what the point is. There are lots less scat singers than sax players because it is a more genre-dependent form. Many jazz vocalists do not scat.

[catmandu2]

I don't necessarily agree about the violin vs sax example either; I presume he's thinking "fretless vs stops"... yet the point about vocalisation--lacking the same cues (visual and tactile references), or at least to the same "extent," as instruments--I understand and, FWIW, have offered similar sentiments here on cafe (although I may not have come to identical conclusions as does Pressing). I think it's relevant--particularly in regards to improvisation

[Don Stiernberg]

Perhaps interesting to note also would be how many instrumentalists are striving to make their instrument "sound like a voice"or make their improvisations "sing" or "tell the story"...

[catmandu2]

No doubt that's the object Don--I only find it more challenging, myself, to accomplish on strings. IME, to accomplish a "feeling" of vocalization with strings (being as it is "one more step removed," as it were, as it comprises the additional "impediments"--the visual, tactile, and patternistic references) is that much greater an accomplishment--evoking that much more admiration from me

Not that it's particularly relevant here, but interesting that strings resemble the "vocal chords" and the wind instrument that of the air column of the human anatomy and physiology. Therefore they both share valid comparison to "vocalization"--possible, and likely, that the qualitiative comparison is entirely subjective, again: but I think the writer's premise of the "feedback loop" has more objective relevance (than my own subjective comparisons)

And FWIW, I don't intend as a basis for my comparison a "better and worse" scenario--only observation of process

[SincereCorgi]

"All improvisers use feedback from their playing in order to judge what to play next"

I don't understand what this means or what exactly the study is getting at. That it's harder to improvise if you're a singer? Billions of people improvise little songs every day. What metric do you use for 'talent' when comparing singers and saxophonists, and does the fact that there are 5,000,000 good sax improvisers for for every ophicleide improviser indicate that the ophicleide has bad 'feedback'?

[catmandu2]

... does the fact that there are 5,000,000 good sax improvisers for for every ophicleide improviser indicate that the ophicleide has bad 'feedback'?

The short answer: dude, look at that thing!

I think the gist is, but, a different type of feedback..

[JeffD]

He is talking about the more feedback loops you have. Vocals its just the sound you make. Stringed musical instruments its the sound you make and the physical response of the instrument in your hands. Brass and woodwinds, its the sound you make, the physical respose of the instrument in your hands, and the physical response of the instrument in your mouth and diaphragm.

The more avenues for feedback, is the point.

[SincereCorgi]

I still don't get it though- why would having a trombone vibrating against your chops make it easier to improvise on than on a guitar?

[Charlieshafer]

Yeah, I don;t buy it completely. Sounds like he had a thesis due and this was the best he could come up with...

[JeffD]

Yeah, I don;t buy it completely. Sounds like he had a thesis due and this was the best he could come up with...

[jackmalonis]

On Saxophone you anticipate which key you will press, on violin it seems you don't have the same anticipation since there is no clear cut fret or button etc. so you're already losing some of that "body awareness" stimulus.

With the voice you have even less stimuli. You can anticipate your next note neither with sight or touch. Unless you have perfect pitch your next note is based almost solely around the last one you sang, and trying to "imagine" the interval between your last note and the next.

You can imagine your 3rd finger pressing a G on the sax, but you can't imagine the vocal cord exertion required to sing a G.

[mandocrucian]

I googled this guy and found his obit w/article excerpt "The Physicality and Corporeality of Improvisation." ( http://www.abc.net.au/arts/adlib/stories/s858418.htm ) It reads like a tax lawyer (or vaudevillian Prof. Irwin Corey) talking about music; give me the dumbass's Neil DeGrasse Tyson undestandable translation, please.

"physicality is more essentially encoded in the process of improvisation than in re-creation of fixed music, because the performer feeds off all the resources of the moment to create, and thus relies more directly on manipulation of motor programs and specific motor acts in unforeseen, rather than foreseen ways"

So what does that bit of Phd-speak mean? If you feel the groove then you blow better?

As far as improv on violin being more difficult than sax improv? What did he do...test a bunch of violinists (even the vast numbers of ever-present "jazz Violinists) to arrive at this conclusion? Perhaps most "violinists" were trained in a classical system - even the ones that decided to play jazz on the instrument after they gained some proficiency on it. Sax players no doubt were improv-oriented from the outset whether they preferred Clarence Clemmons, King Curtis, Charlie Parker or Coltrane. I don't think it has anything to do with the particular instrument, but the way the player's brain got wired in the learning process.

As far as the scat vocalist stuff. Well, there is probably some truth that in some respects, doing it vocally is harder. First, if you don't hear it you won't sing it. Also, there are the issues of range/register and certain interval sequences being more difficult to sing. An instrumentalist can press a button or key and fret and get their note(s), and they can coast on finger muscle/memory without really actively "hearing" something, until they do think of/hear something "interesting". So, I guess instrumentalists can rely on the feedback of muscle memory? Or random finger patterns across the neck! (But I don't particularly consider finger diarrhea to be "improvising". Hey, let me randomly untune some strings and play some cracked far-out licks - won't know how it sounds til I hear it coming out of the instrument!.... Wait, let me also move my bridge so I get 11 or 13 frets to the octave and get even more 'out there'!)

There's also the self-sorting aspects re: who opts for singing vs playing an instrument. Singers tend to deal with words and as soon as language is involved different brain areas are involved. If those singers really weren't interested in lyrics...they would probably be playing a instrument. (duh)

[catmandu2]

I googled this guy and found his obit w/article excerpt "The Physicality and Corporeality of Improvisation." ( http://www.abc.net.au/arts/adlib/stories/s858418.htm ) It reads like a tax lawyer (or vaudevillian Prof. Irwin Corey) talking about music; give me the dumbass's Neil DeGrasse Tyson undestandable translation, please.



So what does that bit of Phd-speak mean? If you feel the groove then you blow better?

Well, it reads clear to me. Maybe he's writing for a journal audience?

I think that--If you feel the groove then you blow better--is part of it...but of course one needs to use the requisite jargon... Having done grad school in the field, I don't mind such jargon. But I've experienced exactly what he's writing about--before having read about it---so I can relate also on an experiential level

[JonZ]

Scat singing is out of fashion could also explain.

[Dale Ludewig]

Is it implied then that people who play both fiddle and mandolin, such as Sam Bush, improvise in more of a groove when playing mandolin?

[catmandu2]

Darn those confounding variables!

Now i am curious--I wonder what pressing actually has to say about his violin/sax thing. Maybe it's merely a Freudian reference...emanating from his own issues with "sax and violins".

[Jim Garber]

Thanks, Niles, for your thoughts on this topic. I could not quite put my finger on it but there seemed to be many holes in the logic of this theory.

[jackmalonis]

All I know is that even after performing as a vocalist for years (not a great one granted) I don't feel comfortable improvising whatsoever.
Whereas that's the first thing I do when picking up a mando or guitar.

[JonZ]

I think singing leaves you feeling more personally exposed. So it is harder to turn off the old frontal lobe inhibitor.

Also, you really feel stupid the first time you sing "Bip bip zaaaaaaah roh rye rye rye!"

[jackmalonis]

I think singing leaves you feeling more personally exposed. So it is harder to turn off the old frontal lobe inhibitor.

Also, you really feel stupid the first time you sing "Bip bip zaaaaaaah roh rye rye rye!"

There's definitely something to be said about The nakedness of singing.

At the same time it makes it one of the most emotionally charged "instruments."

And I've never scat (scatted?) before so I can't really relate to that, but even just throwing a couple extra high notes and fancy runs in there opens the opportunity for me to fall flat on my face vocally.

[John Flynn]

You guys all have it wrong. The link below is the role of feedback in improvisation! Seriously, that's what I thought this thread was going to be about when I clicked on it and I was thinking, "Oh, now this is going to be interesting!

[YOUTUBE]zXkeFmQ52Yg[/YOUTUBE]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXkeFmQ52Yg

[JonZ]

I think we also expect singing to be easier, since we a just using our voice. Very few people who try to improvise vocals have put in the same hours of technical work as your typical instrumentalist.

Still, I do enjoy going all "Mariah Carey" at the end of each phrase.

[JeffD]

I think we also expect singing to be easier, since we a just using our voice. Very few people who try to improvise vocals have put in the same hours of technical work as your typical instrumentalist.
.

I remember an interview with Mel Tormey, arguably the best since Ella. He was asked how one prepares to sing scat. He said: "Learn to sing your scales and arpeggios in every key, and then learn to sing the intervals between every note and every other note so that you can do it on demand." Or words to that effect. In essence - learn your instrument.

Like anything else, the greats do it right.

Most folks think its just spontaneous vocal outbursts.