Guide to non-jazz improvisation mandolin edition [Archive]

Alex Fields

Nov-20-2007, 11:27pm

If this is the wrong board for this tell me where to move it, I didn't know where to put it.

I'm ordering music books and stuff and one thing I've found that seems interesting is the Guide to Non-Jazz Improvisation Mandolin Edition by Dick Weissman and Dan Fox. Unfortunately there are no reviews of it on Amazon and no pageviews. Does anyone have this book? Is it any good? Just beginner/intermediate stuff or enough beyond that to make it worth reading for an advanced player? Anything you could tell me about it (or if you could scan and Email me table of contents and/or sample pages or something) would be wonderful, I can't afford all the books I want to order so I need to find out what I can about them.

Curtis

Nov-21-2007, 8:42am

jmcgann

Nov-21-2007, 8:52am

veddy interesting...

Mandomax

Nov-21-2007, 9:04am

I got this from the Mel Bay website...
The non-jazz improvisation series is a concept that germinated in Dick Weissman's mind while he was attending music school. He wrote a 15-piece arrangement of the old square dance tune, Cripple Creek, and wanted the trombone to take a solo as part of the arrangement. When the trombonist kept playing a bebop solo that was totally unsuitable for the chart, Dick realized that - in addition to the many musicians who do not improvise - there are even jazz musicians who don't know how to improvise outside the limits of their own stylistic backgrounds. The non-jazz improvisation series mostly includes new original tunes that are intended to show how to improvise in many musical styles, including;

* Blues
* Country
* American folk
* Latin-American
* World music including South American, Eastern European and Asian
* Odd meters (playing in a variety of time signatures)
* New Age
* Classical
* Folk-Rock

In short, the books are an encyclopedia of virtually every musical style, excluding jazz.

Mandomax

Nov-21-2007, 9:06am

Link to Weissman book (http://www.melbay.com/product.asp?ProductID=20829BCD)
You can look at page views from this link

Curtis

Nov-21-2007, 9:45am

So basically if seems that if you listen to the style you are going to be playing and are aware of its stylistic traits, you won't need this book.

Klaus Wutscher

Nov-21-2007, 9:46am

Hmm. . . maybe it's my bias, but how exactly would you have "advanced" improvisation for non-jazz mandolin? Nothing against non-jazz mandolin at all, but it is inherently quite a bit less advanced for improvisation.
There is life outside of jazz for advanced improvisors, imho. The whole new acoustic thing can be quite advanced, and I would hesitate to call most (or even any) of it jazz. Then, there are all the genres mentioned in the blurb and others, such as flamenco, classical indian music, choro...

all have their specific challenges and if someone´s playing is not advanced, it may be by choice (or not http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif ) but you can´t blame the style.

Also, "advanced" playing is not merely a result of the complexity of applied theory. Much of the best BG playing is quite advanced in all aspects of music, except for theoretical concepts. Durn hard to pull off, nevertheless!

jmcgann

Nov-21-2007, 10:13am

In short, the books are an encyclopedia of virtually every musical style, excluding jazz.

I have yet to see the book, so I won't judge it, but I will say that to convincingly* improvise within a style, you have to learn the vocabulary of that style (i.e. a whole bunch of tunes, and a whole bunch of different settings of said tunes) and not just some superficial mannerisms and 'typical licks'. That goes for jazz as well.

People devote their entire lives to playing any one of those styles. That is "roots", and it doesn't come from a book.

It stands to reason that no matter how thick a book may be, it can only scratch the surface of what it means to be deep into a style of music.

* convincing a crowd of people who know and love the "real deal" of the style.

Curtis

Nov-21-2007, 10:43am

There is life outside of jazz for advanced improvisors, imho. The whole new acoustic thing can be quite advanced, and I would hesitate to call most (or even any) of it jazz.
I understand what you're saying and won't disagree at all. But even these non-jazz complex styles (I think) you're thinking of still use "jazz" improvisation. If that makes any sense. . .

As an example to (try and) prove my point: could you imagine seeing a book out there called "Advanced Bluegrass Improvisation"? There simply isn't any such thing. Unless, of course, you start working jazz vocabulary into your playing.

JimD

Nov-21-2007, 10:55am

Curtis

Nov-21-2007, 12:18pm

There are a number of classical improv styles -- some quite advanced -- that have nothing to do with jazz
Such as. . . .?

And they are related to mandolin how?

I am aware of one such style--organ chorale prelude improvisation. Not too conducive to the mandolin.

JimD

Nov-21-2007, 1:36pm

There is improviing of preludes to composed works, improvising of cadenzas to concerti and certain kinds of chamber works, improvising of fugues etc. -- all practiced up until the early 20th century and being revived again more recently. Some of these are quite complex -- involving creation of the whole composition (themes, harmony and counterpoint etc.).

There are also improvisational elements in many types of contemporary classical music.

Application to mandolin?

Certainly most of these things were practiced by mandolinists in the past and should be now.

The one that may seem the least likely -- improvising fugues -- can certainly be done on mandolin too.

There are many who like to say that classical musicians don't improvise. I find that this is usually a defensive statement made by folks who don't (or don't want to) read notation. I hope I'm not reopening that particular can of worms.

I am just pointing out that there are "advanced" forms of improvisation that are not jazz-based.

Alex Fields

Nov-21-2007, 1:47pm

There was classical improvisation long before there was any kind of jazz music at all. Are you going to call classical music less complex than jazz or something? If any one type of music has a claim to the greatest difficulty and complexity (and I don't think one does) it is classical music. The superiority complex and limited view of jazz musicians can be annoying sometimes.

By the way I wasn't interested in that book as a way to learn to improvise or to play in certain genres, I am already skilled at improv and knowledgeable about several genres of playing. I was just interested in the book as maybe a source of a few good ideas or practice exercises or something, and would probably be a poor source for that (not to say a worthless one but at least one not worth twenty bucks for someone on a small budget) if it were geared toward beginning to intermediate players.

Quote (JimD @ Nov. 21 2007, 10:55)
There are a number of classical improv styles -- some quite advanced -- that have nothing to do with jazz

Such as. . . .?

And they are related to mandolin how?

You're making at least two claims that seem pretty ignorant to me:

1. Jazz has some kind of monopoly on improvisation or complex improvisation. There are lots of really complex types of music that are not jazz. There are things that make jazz music jazz other than that it is complex and improvisational. There are unimaginably numerous ways that music can be complex, and there's no reason you can't take any style of music (that is, any harmonic, rhythmic, melodic, etc., language) and improvise with it. Just listen to an improvisation in a basically classical idiom from someone like Mark O'Connor. It is not jazz, it is highly complex, and it is almost impossible to pull of technically. There are also some really complex types of folk music in eastern europe (say Romanian or Bulgarian music) and in Asia (say Chinese zither music) which can be very improvisational. A strict jazz musician confronted with an improvisational Bulgarian dance (in, say, 17/8 with a rhythmic and harmonic structure totally different from anything you'll find in western folk music) will have no idea what to do, unless it is to play jazz music which is decidedly inappropriate in the context, just as a strict Bulgarian player would not know what to do in a jazz context.

2. If a given instrument is not usually used to play a certain type of music, it can't be used to play it. That's just dumb, I should think there are enough genre experimenters on every instrument out there to convince you that just because some type of music is usually played on organ or violin or balalaika or whatever it is doesn't mean you can't play it on a mandolin effectively. Improvisation is largely about theory, there's no reason you can't take all the harmonic and rhythmic improv tools from any given genre or instrument and use them on a mandolin.

JimD

Nov-21-2007, 1:49pm

Alex -- Thanks for taking the time to say what I was too lazy to articulate.

Alex Fields

Nov-21-2007, 1:50pm

Also, speaking strictly of mandolin specific improv, you can use duo picking and some intricate hammer on/pull of technique to play two or three or four parts on a mandolin at once. Please explain to me how improvising three separate lines to one piece on a single instrument is not complex, or why it isn't possible to do this outside of a jazz idiom. Evan Marshall does stuff like this, so does Radim Zenkl I think.

Alex Fields

Nov-21-2007, 1:54pm

No problem. I personally don't much care for jazz, at least not for jazz harmonic language, but I am passionate about both classical and eastern european folk music (as well as like old time and even a little Chinese music) and it's really annoying to be told that those types of music are either somehow inferior to jazz or just don't count for some weird reason. And especially with classical music, a 'genre' going back a millenia or more (meaning ten times or more longer than jazz music) and usually considered as the most complex or 'highest' form of music (not really by me, I'm a staunch defender of folk music, but I think even among folk musicians there's sortof a defensive attitude any time comparisons are made with classical music, which suggests there's at least a hint of the idea that there's a presumption toward classical from which other types of music need to be defended), it's rather surprising to see it dismissed as either inferior to jazz or somehow being subsumed into jazz. That's just bizarre.

jmcgann

Nov-21-2007, 1:56pm

Please explain to me how improvising three separate lines to one piece on a single instrument is not complex, or why it isn't possible to do this outside of a jazz idiom. Evan Marshall does stuff like this, so does Radim Zenkl I think.

So did Bach! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Curtis

Nov-21-2007, 2:01pm

1. Jazz has some kind of monopoly on improvisation or complex improvisation. There are lots of really complex types of music that are not jazz.

2. If a given instrument is not usually used to play a certain type of music, it can't be used to play it. That's just dumb
1) but we aren't talking about complex music--we're talking about "advanced improvisation." Can we all first off assume that the person on the other side of the monitor is actually an educated musician? I most certainly am and assume you are as well.

I know of no other musical style that has improvisation as complex as jazz. And still haven't found anyone to mention any other style that compares. You shouldn't assume, based on that assertion, that I'm a jazz musician. I haven't played jazz in years and have no bias for it.

2) Oh yea because I'm sure a book on Baroque Improvisational Techniques in Chorale Preludes for Mandolin is one that's going to go over really well. . . .

I have studied improvisation including non-jazz and haven't found anything nearly as complex. This includes African with "complex" rhythms which really aren't as complex as this cliche stereotype some people have. It is fascinating to the nth degree (to continue cliches) though.

Alex Fields

Nov-21-2007, 2:02pm

Haha sometimes I really wish I could listen to Bach play an instrument. Listening to (and playing) a three or four part fugue written for one more or less monophonous instruments makes my mind explode. The violin sonatas and partitas are probably my favorite part of the 'mandolin' repertoire to work on.

I'm studying Renaissance and baroque counterpoint/fugue (specifically Palestrina and Bach, I'm also into Debussy's harmony but that's obviously a very different type of thing from the other two) and want to try applying classical counterpoint to a folk idiom. Maybe take some straightforward fiddle tunes and write counterpoint lines to them or turn them into fugues.

Laurence Firth

Nov-21-2007, 2:06pm

Back to the original question: YES I have this book. It has some good information concerning various scales and some improv techniques. Its a good book as books go and it comes with a CD with tracks that demo the concepts presented in the book. I listen to lots of different styles of music including jazz. I also love bluegrass and early country music (pre-1960's)and blues and folk, oldtime etc. I play what I listen to and I use any material that helps me become a better player. Including books!

L

JimD

Nov-21-2007, 2:12pm

Please explain to me how improvising three separate lines to one piece on a single instrument is not complex, or why it isn't possible to do this outside of a jazz idiom. #Evan Marshall does stuff like this, so does Radim Zenkl I think.

So did Bach! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Following this line of thought for a moment...

There is documentation of the way that Bach and other 18th century musicians learned how to improvise fugues. They often used what are called "partimento fugues". These are essentially fugue subjects (the main theme only) followed by a figured bass upon which the player was expected to improvise the rest of the composition. They would also learn (by example, very likely) to create their own fugue subjects.

There are well over a hundred of these partimento fugues currently in print in various sources. I use them as writing exercises for my conservatory fugue classes.

A few years ago, I decided to work through these to learn to improvise fugues at the keyboard. It soon became obvious to me that with a little adjustment the process could be adapted for mandolin and guitar (both of which I play much better than piano).

This is one of my current projects. I have been improvising fugues in the practice room and hope soon to include some of this in public performance as well.

I have already (for many years) improvised preludes in 18th c. style as intros to pieces from that era -- including the two Mozart lieder. Again, this was a pretty common practice up to the early 20th century. There are recordings of pianist Wilhelm Backhaus preluding before Chopin and Schuman pieces.

JimD

Nov-21-2007, 2:20pm

Alex Fields

Nov-21-2007, 2:21pm

1) but we aren't talking about complex music--we're talking about "advanced improvisation." Can we all first off assume that the person on the other side of the monitor is actually an educated musician? I most certainly am and assume you are as well.

What is advanced improvisation if not improvisation that is theoretically complex and technically difficult? Anyway what I meant when I originally said that was just to indicate that I wasn't looking for something to help me learn to improvise because I already do, I was looking for something that would be useful for a technically advanced player who already improvises well.

I am certainly willing to give everyone benefit of the doubt (both morally and musically) insofar as they have not said anything so obviously ignorant to indicate otherwise. Everything I've said was based strictly on things you said and not any further assumptions about you or your musical experience.

I know of no other musical style that has improvisation as complex as jazz. And still haven't found anyone to mention any other style that compares. You shouldn't assume, based on that assertion, that I'm a jazz musician. I haven't played jazz in years and have no bias for it.

Several such styles have already been mentioned: the various forms of classical improvisation (organ music, improvisational cadenzas, classical improvisation on solo instruments), folk music from eastern europe, Chinese zither music (guqin music is mindblowingly complex, there are something like 150 formally recognized different ways to pluck a string with a finger on your right hand, a system of rhythmn and harmony very different from western music but equally as complex, and a musical tradition with written notation and standardized instrument designs going back two or three thousand years).

Also, why does it matter if there are traditions of complex improvisation? Regardless of whether it is commonly done or not, there's no reason a person cannot improvise in any idiom they like and do so with every bit as much technical skill and theoretical complexity as jazz musicians.

I have studied improvisation including non-jazz and haven't found anything nearly as complex. This includes African with "complex" rhythms which really aren't as complex as this cliche stereotype some people have.

I know little to nothing about African music and so cannot say anything about that. I know a lot about classical music and any type of complexity you can imagine, any theoretical tool whatsoever, is to be found in abundance in classical music and all of these tools can be and have been used in improvisation. Granted classical improvisation has not been nearly as common over the past century or so as it once was, but the tradition exists, and improvisation is much more common now in modernist classical music than it was not very long ago. But the frequency with which it is done is totally irrelevant. The point is there is absolutely no reason it can't be done by anyone with sufficient skill on any instrument they choose.

Also, why this focus on specific genres and traditions? A book on improvisation need not be just about improvisation within specific traditions. It can very well talk about general improvisational techniques, ways of thinking about it, which can be applied to at least some extent in just about any musical idiom. And there's no reason it can't talk about 'advanced' ideas about improvisation without resorting to talking about jazz. Indeed I think the point of that book is that most people either can't improvise or can only improvise with jazz music, and that there is no reason this should be the case.

Alex Fields

Nov-21-2007, 2:27pm

I have already (for many years) improvised preludes in 18th c. style as intros to pieces from that era -- including the two Mozart lieder. Again, this was a pretty common practice up to the early 20th century. There are recordings of pianist Wilhelm Backhaus preluding before Chopin and Schuman pieces.

At least some composers would improvise a lot during performances of their works. Fauré was famous for doing this and supposedly very good at it. I am far from an expert in this stuff, I know much more about the music itself and playing it than I do about music history and such, but I've read a few books of music history and various articles on specific composers I'm interested in.

Perry

Nov-21-2007, 2:43pm

I play what I listen to and I use any material that helps me become a better player. Including books!

Well said. I'd probably get that book except I've got like 100 books I don't have time for already!

I may have mentioned before but I really enjoy this book by Garrison Fewell Jazz Improvisation for Guitar – A melodic approach (http://www.berkleepress.com/catalog/product?product_id=3702025)

Though I don't play jazz I do play "jam band" music where there are extended jams over static Dom7 chords.

I find his approach to using triads very cool for this stuff. The concepts apply to mando.

Yes there is improv outside of jazz!

Big Joe

Nov-21-2007, 3:16pm

Curtis...I disagree completely with your assertation that Bluegrass cannot contain advanced improvisation. I have heard way too much advanced Bluegrass improvisational music to buy into your comment. The only difference between jazz and bluegrass is the chordal structure. Just using more chord variations alone does not make it more advanced or improvisational. You may find it far more challenging to improvise over three or four chord arrangements than you find in most Jazz arrangements, but that does not diminish the advanced possibilities with simpler chord structures. Listen to guys like Tony Wray on banjo. He'll knock your head off. Listen to Danny Roberts or Grissman or Tiny Moore or Jethro Burns. You may try to tell me Jethro is not improvisational and you will never convince me. I cut my teeth on jazz and still love it, but there is just as great a challenge and opportunity in Bluegrass to find improv nirvana.

Let's think about the three real genuine American genre's of music. Jazz, Bluegrass, and Blues. Each of these are very similar but go in a different direction. You can have all the improv in each of these genre's you wish and you can still be advanced. This is my experience. They have a common background, and if you boil each of them to their simplest you find they are the same. It's what you do from there that determines if it is jass, bluegrass or blues, and each contains an equal degree of skill to improvise.

Nathan Kellstadt

Nov-21-2007, 3:28pm

On a related note, for anyone out there who's interested in improvisation as a subject in general, there is a great book by the guitar player Derek Bailey.

Improvisation: Its Nature and Practice in Music (http://www.amazon.com/Improvisation-Its-Nature-Practice-Music/dp/0306805286)

The book discusses, primarily through interviews, improvisation in Jazz, Flamenco, Avante Garde, Indian, Classical, etc. I personally found it very illuminating.

It definitely opens one up to the multitude of ways improvisation can manifest itself in music all over the world, both simple and complex.

Alex Fields

Nov-21-2007, 3:30pm

Let's think about the three real genuine American genre's of music. Jazz, Bluegrass, and Blues.

And old time and, hahaha, native american folk music (if that isn't "genuine American music" I don't know what is). Maybe Hawaiian music, but that's a stretch. And maybe you could name some commercial genres like country but...well I don't like commercial music so I don't like to count it for that reason if no other. Oh, and gospel but maybe that counts as part of another genre?

Alex Fields

Nov-21-2007, 3:33pm

Haha and thanks to the like, two people who actually said something about the book I asked about.

Nathan Kellstadt

Nov-21-2007, 3:51pm

Some threads take on a life of their own (frequently spiraling into bickering), much to the dismay (rightfully so) of the original poster.

Alex Fields

Nov-21-2007, 5:34pm

I'm probably as often responsible for such digressions as I am the victim...so I can't say anything. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

JimD

Nov-21-2007, 5:59pm

What, exactly, is the protocol here?

Does every slight diversion need a new thread?

If so this one would have only one or two entries and we'd also have these new topics:

--All advanced improv is jazz based
-- Classical is not jazz based
--Bluegrass and Blues can have advanced improv
--What is genuine American music
--An interesting book by Derek Bailey

and last, but not least:

How and why threads take on a life of their own.
---------------------------------------------------

I really don't think we got off the topic in any substantive way...

Alex Fields

Nov-21-2007, 6:06pm

The "how and why threads take on a life of their own" thread might be fun. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

No, I don't think this particular thread has got so off topic that a new thread should've been started. I had in mind that other thread ("9000 to spend" or whatever it's called) where I (and to a lesser degree several other people) unfortunately got into an argument with a couple of guys about whether we are immoral people for buying expensive mandolins.

When I said
Haha and thanks to the like, two people who actually said something about the book I asked about.
it was meant as a joke and not as a complaint that the thread was off topic. I mean it is off topic in a way, since the original topic was the quality or skill level of a particular book, but not really in a bad way...

Right.

August Watters

Nov-21-2007, 11:00pm

Curtis...I disagree completely with your assertation that Bluegrass cannot contain advanced improvisation.

Absolutely. Just because the music is based on triads doesn't limit the application of advanced improvisation concepts.

Playing over 4-part chords seems daunting at first, but once you have mastered that vocabulary, there can be as much challenge in playing over triads. Listen to Chick Corea or Gary Burton.

What's stopping us from applying these ideas to bluegrass? Only our imagination.

August W

Klaus Wutscher

Nov-22-2007, 3:10am

I´m very happy about this thread because I learned that there exists a fiddle version of this book which makes a perfect birthday gift for a friend of mine who is just starting out to improvise on the fiddle.

Back to off topic, I strongly disagree with Curtis, for much of the reasons given by other posters, and would add the following:

We often tend to forget that "Jazz" as a genre was not based on complex theory from the beginning. Charlie Christian, Jango Reinhardt, Bix Beiderbecke.... most of the early Jazz greats did not have a strong background in music theorie. they just had the chops, and they swung! Only in the 40ies, complex improvisational concepts became an integral part of jazz. To this day, you could be a great swing player and not have to bother with superimpositions and the use of the locrian mode - in swing, you might be better off without applying that knowledge anyway:p

jmcgann

Nov-22-2007, 7:07am

Should we mention improvisation in rock and roll, in all it's varied styles?

Whoever said African music's rhythmic complexity is overstated is speaking from a state of blissful unawareness. If you can sit down with traditional music from Mali and tell me where "one" is in any of the interlocking parts, I'll swallow my mandolin whole. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

The early jazz greats may not have "studied theory", but theory is just a verbalized system for the organization of sounds. They heard the organization. It is not random, hit and miss improvisation, but a very well ordered way that Louis, Bix, Django, Charlie Christian etc. played, melodically, harmonically, and rhythmically.

For those who think bluegrass improvisation isn't much rhythmically, listen to the incredible subtlety of Clarence White and David Grier to name two (should I add Stuart Duncan and Bela to the pot?). REALLY listen deeply to Monroe- you can't accurately notate what he is doing on paper rhythmically, you can quantize it to quarter/eighth/sixteenth, but it is more deep and complex than that. Listen CLOSELY to Scruggs- what Hartford called "the space between the notes". If you miss those things, you are missing some of the coolest elements of the music.

I've seen many a musician have to eat a big slice of humble pie, blaring "bluegrass is easy" when they've never played it before, and jumped onstage as a "guest soloist" and made fools of themselves. "Three chords, how hard could it be, I can already play Stare Way to Heaven!" D'OH!

Klaus Wutscher

Nov-22-2007, 8:00am

The early jazz greats may not have "studied theory", but theory is just a verbalized system for the organization of sounds. They heard the organization. It is not random, hit and miss improvisation, but a very well ordered way that Louis, Bix, Django, Charlie Christian etc. played, melodically, harmonically, and rhythmically.
Exactly! What I tried to point out was that all the "sophisticated" jazz concepts were not even developed when jazz hit the scene- it came from an oral tradition, as have country/bluegrass , blues, gospel, rock....

While it is true that few people can navigate through "Giant Steps" safely without a solid background in andvanced jazz theorie, I get the feeling that many modern performers seem to rely almost entirely on theoretical concepts, which are important and have their place, but it´s not the whole story.

Come to think of it, "advanced" BG improvisation technique may just as well exist- it just isn´t codified as such. The process to become a great BG improvisor is still the same as it has been in Jazz until the 40ies - hearing, transcribing, learning by doing. Such theory would have to deal with improvising over a melody/vs. over a set of changes; how to determin key notes of melodies and incorporate them into solos; use of blue notes vs. diatonic improvisation; use of non diatonic double stops, chord inversions- and that´s just from the top of my head.

Just because concepts are not codified does not mean they don´t exist.

DMC

Nov-22-2007, 9:13am

Isn't the 'complexity' of improvisation (or how 'advanced' it is) really determined by the player's imagination as opposed to the genre of music or harmonic background?[B]

Mark Robertson-Tessi

Nov-22-2007, 9:31am

Peter Hackman

Nov-22-2007, 11:04am

Isn't the 'complexity' of improvisation (or how 'advanced' it is) really determined by the player's imagination as opposed to the genre of music or harmonic background?[B]
Great point. #I think "complexity" is really a post-mortem assessment of improvisation, because in the ultimate sense, the true improvisation is just playing. #It trancends the underlying theory. #There are so many levels and subtleties to playing any type of music that I think it's unreasonable to state that complexity merely rests on the harmonic language over which one improvises. #

Peter Hackman quoted Bobo Stenson in another thread as essentially saying that J. McLaughlin neither played the changes nor the scales, but rather that he improvised. #I think that's the essence right there. #The complexity is in McLaughlin's head and heart, rather than on the page of music he's playing. #It doesn't matter what style he's playing.

Cheers
MRT
I sometimes wonder what Bobo actually said! Maybe he simply wanted to say that in true improvisation there are no fixed scales or chords, even the foundation of the improvisation is open to constant change - that probably applies to Bobo's own music but certainly not all of jazz. There are degrees to everything!

Or maybe he was just impatient with that kind of intellectualization.

I must confess that I have a lot of trouble with today's jazz, especially bop-rooted stuff. To my ears it gets increasingly complex in rhythmical and harmonic details - even on familiar tunes -
in a way I find hard to absorb, as things are never repeated or developed for
longer stretches. To create a larger form and a rounded statement is another level of complexity seemingly neglected today. Miles Davis was the master of that.

Peter Hackman

Nov-22-2007, 11:30am

For those who think bluegrass improvisation isn't much rhythmically, listen to the incredible subtlety of Clarence White and David Grier to name two (should I add Stuart Duncan and Bela to the pot?). REALLY listen deeply to Monroe- you can't accurately notate what he is doing on paper rhythmically, you can quantize it to quarter/eighth/sixteenth, but it is more deep and complex than that. Listen CLOSELY to Scruggs- what Hartford called "the space between the notes". If you miss those things, you are missing some of the coolest elements of the music.
I hesitate to call Grier a bluegrass musician,
and almost refuse to include Bela Fleck.
To me they're part of the wonderfully broad-minded contemporary acoustic scene. But what do those labels actually mean?

If we concede that Grier is a BG musician he may serve as a good illsutration of the importance of the material, #the tempos and the groove for satisfying improvisation. I can play along with almost all of his recorded stuff, which can only mean that he's avoiding those ridiculous tempos that all but kill your melodic and rhythmic imagination (I certainly have less of that than he has).

I haven't checked with a metronome but I doubt much of it is #above 120 bpm. And his least satisfying numbers are the most BG-like, #such as Impulsive and Smith Chapel. #Need I mention that there is more than a hint of a jazz influence?

When I was into BG (of sorts) - 38-39 years ago -
my mind was set on improvisation. I spent a lot of energy finding songs that I thought would suit our singer (who was very good but not exactly a Del McCourey or Jimmy Martin),
and would be fun to blow on. We'd much rather do Trouble in Mind, Wabash Blues, and Peach Picking Time in Georgia
than Whitehouse Blues! Instrumentally, we did play such tunes as Shucking the Corn and Turkey in the Straw
(we also had a few fully arranged numbers)
but the ones I really enjoyed doing were Bye, Bye Blues, Limehouse Blues, Waiting for the Sunrise. And I got more inspiration from Harold Bradley,
Zeke Turner, Jimmy Wyble, and
Tiny Moore than from any BG player, mandolin or guitar. And I can safely say that most of the BG solists then were very respectful of barlines and four-bar (or sometimes five-bar!) periods!

There are tunes I wouldn't #play today #for varying reasons. Foggy Mt. Breakdown, Cripple Creek, Blackberry Blossom.

Mark Robertson-Tessi

Nov-22-2007, 12:04pm

I sometimes wonder what Bobo actually said! Maybe he simply wanted to say that in true improvisation there are no fixed scales or chords, even the foundation of the improvisation is open to constant change - that probably applies to Bobo's own music but certainly not all of jazz. There are degrees to everything!

Or maybe he was just impatient with that kind of intellectualization.
I've heard many great players say the same thing as Bobo. And maybe it's open to interpretation, but for me it says that it's about the music, when you get to the heart of it. One can debate the merits of learning theory, etc. (and I think it has great value), but in the end one passes through that forest of terminology and analysis and the music is just simply music. You hear it, you play it. Within one's self-imposed limitations of style, technique, and setting, the music just is.
Cheers
MRT

jmcgann

Nov-22-2007, 12:25pm

Peter Hackman

Nov-23-2007, 10:38am

As much as labels are a drag, how could you classify Grier or Bela as anything but bluegrass rooted musicians? They are not coming out of the jazz tradition or rock tradition (or any other tradition that I can hear) as a basis for their instrumental skills ... Grier has built on Clarence and Bela on Scruggs and Trischka...
Well, in Grier's case I wrote "hesitate", mainly because "bluegrass" is one of those labels that make people stop listening. To me the only thing that connects a great tune like "King Wilkie's Run" with BG is its title.

It's clear from interviews that he views himself as a BG musician, but he also stresses the importance of the period he played the electric guitar.
My reluctance to label him, in spite of his pedigree, is of course a tribute to his genius.

As for Fleck, I don't know much about his background. The fact that he was christened for three East European classical composers is some indication, I guess.

The first CD of his that I heard was Acoustic Planet, No.1. Then followed Meyer's Uncommon Ritual (on a classical label) and Strength in Numbers
and I don't hear that much of a BG connection. AP, No.2, has the
Regular Gang so I suppose it qualifies. I'm certainly glad if the BG label sells records and lands them gigs at festivals, but to my ears even that CD is further from the BG tradition than, say, the Infamous Stringdusters
(as heard on record) and Cadillac Sky.

Anyway, labels! #More important, these cats are nice examples of advanced improvisation that can't really be called jazz (although I believe Fleck
thinks of AP 1 as jazz).

And speaking of non-jazz, truly advanced, improvisation, right now one can hear a 21 minute marathon by Thile and Sutton on YouTube,
and it frightens me.

Big Joe

Nov-23-2007, 10:51am

Most of the hot bluegrass mandolin and guitar and banjo pickers can easily play B/G as well as Jazz and Swing. Much like most of today's country pickers, they play what brings home the bacon but when they are jamming with friends, they are as likely to leave the genre everyone expects and let loose on some really cool jazz or swing. Even when B/G is their favorite form of expression, it does not mean they are limited to such. One of the best jazz musicians I know is a bluegrass and country mandolin and fiddle hero. Aubrie Haney can play jazz with the best of them and can do it on any stringed instrument. The same with Danny Roberts or Dave Harvey. They would absolutely blow you away with the skill they have in other genre's.

Musical expression is more about getting out of you what is in you. If you play how you feel right now it will be improvisational. It may not be the same as you will play it another time when you feel differently, but it is certainly as valid. It may not be as complex as someone else in structure, but if it expresses what you are feeling or experiencing, it is always cool and always improvised. Charts and sheet music are good guides to organize everyone, but when you can play outside those limits is when it truly gets fun!