Keith Jarrett: on classical musicians and improvisation

[SK]

... anyone who has ever tried to juggle or improvise (I assume we can put Vladimir Ashkenazy in here) can attest to the difficulty. But I hesitate to call it composition in the same sense of the word as we use to describe, say, a Prokofiev piano concerto.

 

Flame on ...

Improvisation/composition share the common creative aspect of musical decision. In that sense, they are the same. The main difference is in the timing of the decision making process.

 

Mozart recorded his improvisations by the only method possible in his day: on paper.

 

And improvising/composing share the same urgency of expression in the moment. So I see them creatively as the same... the difference being the faster decisions we make while talking vs. the slower decisions we'd make while writing a book.

 

And for me, composing usually seems to use a different, more logical side of my brain - if I'm composing something, it's a more reflective state when I'm not in the mode to spontaneously improvise as freely. Improvising relies on faster instincts.

 

But one process is not necessarily superior to the other: either one can use original thoughts or "sets of ideas" - and you can just as easily have a well designed improvised solo or a crummy composition, and vice versa. It's the quality of the music that counts, beyond which process you're using. (And hope this improvised post makes some sense.)

[GovernorSilver]

Lyle Mays improvising a short composition-within-a-composition:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QEbndZbaR8

 

I believe anyone who has heard the version of "Ozark" on the As Falls Wichita Falls, So Falls Wichita Falls CD will agree with me that his piano solo is very, very different on the CD.

[iLaw]

SK,

 

I agree with pretty much everything you've said. I do question whether Mozart's compositions were penciled recordings of his improvisations or whether he engaged the "reflective state" that you described for your own compositional processes (and which I agree is key to what I consider "composing").

 

I also question what to make of your suggestion that neither process is superior. If so, why would any composer "compose"? Why not just "improvise" onto the paper as you're suggesting Mozart did? The answer of course is that composers (at least the ones I know) believe that their best work requires the reflective process that you yourself described.

 

But do improvisers believe the opposite, i.e. that the first idea that pops into their head is their best? Maybe they believe it and maybe, for them, it's true.

 

If so, I guess it's up to us to decide which process produces a superior result. For me the compositional process produces the superior artistic result. Even when it's juggling, I get more satisfaction from a well composed juggle.

 

Larry.

 

[wmp]

I know the language pretty well, and do ok reading chord charts, but I'm not reading two fisted dots without a goodly amount of prep. Good sight readers amaze me. It's always been a real struggle for me.

 

It's so much easier for me to just listen and try to play the right stuff without thinking too hard about it. Folks seem to put up with, and even enjoy whatever I feel like playing. They just become the right notes by virtue of their environment. That's some mighty pretty BS. It blends nicely with the crap I sling.

 

I'd like to hear the other guy's take on that conversation too.

 

[Cygnus64]

I know the language pretty well, and do ok reading chord charts, but I'm not reading two fisted dots without a goodly amount of prep. Good sight readers amaze me. It's always been a real struggle for me.

 

 

 

Good sight-readers generally start young. It's like someone who grows up in a bi-lingual house, they learn both languages without even thinking about it. I have a semi-fluent command of German, but it's not that great. If I started as a kid it would have been a snap.

 

Reading music for me is like reading a comic book, it couldn't be easier. It's because I have done it every day for the past 38 years.

[GovernorSilver]

If so, I guess it's up to us to decide which process produces a superior result.

 

I've thought about it from time to time, but decided it's better to just appreciate the beauty of each on its own merits instead of comparing one vs. the other.

 

I love to improvise, and so do some of my friends. But we also have a great appreciation for well-crafted musical structure. This idea of arbitrary division is outside of how we view and appreciate msuic.

[iLaw]

I know the language pretty well, and do ok reading chord charts, but I'm not reading two fisted dots without a goodly amount of prep. Good sight readers amaze me. It's always been a real struggle for me.

 

It's so much easier for me to just listen and try to play the right stuff without thinking too hard about it. Folks seem to put up with, and even enjoy whatever I feel like playing. They just become the right notes by virtue of their environment. That's some mighty pretty BS. It blends nicely with the crap I sling.

The compositional process doesn't require paper and dots; magnetic and semiconductor media do very well. The key to composition in my opinion is SK's reflective process. Questioning whether the first notes are the best notes, or whether they can be improved upon. Perhaps you're an improviser.

 

Larry.

[GovernorSilver]

But one process is not necessarily superior to the other: either one can use original thoughts or "sets of ideas" - and you can just as easily have a well designed improvised solo or a crummy composition, and vice versa. It's the quality of the music that counts, beyond which process you're using. (And hope this improvised post makes some sense.)

 

I very much agree with you, even though it is probably harder to come up with an improvisation that is at the level of a great composition.

 

That doesn't mean that an improviser should not TRY. What is so wrong with one's reach exceeding one's grasp?

[Joe Muscara]

It is well known that if you edit too much during the creative process, you can kill it. Creating and editing are different processes. I think you can get away with a little tweaking while writing, but you cannot go too far.

[SK]

SK,

 

I agree with pretty much everything you've said. I do question whether Mozart's compositions were penciled recordings of his improvisations or whether he engaged the "reflective state" that you described for your own compositional processes (and which I agree is key to what I consider "composing").

 

I also question what to make of your suggestion that neither process is superior. If so, why would any composer "compose"? Why not just "improvise" onto the paper as you're suggesting Mozart did? The answer of course is that composers (at least the ones I know) believe that their best work requires the reflective process that you yourself described.

 

But do improvisers believe the opposite, i.e. that the first idea that pops into their head is their best? Maybe they believe it and maybe, for them, it's true.

iLaw, I get what you're saying, and your valid questions. You'd also probably agree that the results or quality of music, improvising or composing, depends on the musician's ability, experience and other factors. A composition by a student won't usually be as deep as an improvisation from an experienced improvisor.

 

So, continuing my boring post series: Neither process is superior to the other for the unique purposes they serve. A simple honest musical statement can be just as profound as a long symphonic piece. Like "brevity is the soul of wit," it's relative.

 

I know for me, if I couldn't compose and improvise, a big part of me would be missing. Each satisfies different needs and modes of expression. It's like the difference between someone's inner need to write a book, which doesn't detract at all from the need to have conversations with a friend in the moment. Who can say which is actually more 'important'?

 

Mozart, BTW, was known as a master improvisor, hence his prolific body of work. Of course his music was "reflective"; anything he played was of a high order. Improvisation can be just as deeply introspective (a better word than reflective) as the longer method of composing. If 'done right', both are.

[GovernorSilver]

Most of the skilled improvisors I have known over the years, in various musical idioms, are remarkably facile at stringing together set pieces. They are like jugglers who are able to piece together rehearsed/ingrained moves into a fluid, entertaining, and often imaginative longer group.

 

How many improvisers here do this?

 

I have read various claims from various improvisers about how they go about it. Some do prefer using a library of licks to draw from to craft their improvisations. Some prefer keeping a "pool" of "safe" notes to draw from and making up lines from the pool.

 

And some actually try to create a new piece of music on the fly, with a composer's mentality.

 

Based on my beginner's experience to date (mostly on guitar, a bit on cello, next to none on keys), I seem to be headed towards a zone somewhere between being a juggler and a composer-minded improvisor. There are some great, famous themes/licks/etc. that I find I like to quote/reuse, but I also strive to create on the fly like a composer.

 

Doesn't seem like there's a right/wrong answer - just curious how my betters think.

[SK]

Most of the skilled improvisors I have known over the years, in various musical idioms, are remarkably facile at stringing together set pieces. They are like jugglers who are able to piece together rehearsed/ingrained moves into a fluid, entertaining, and often imaginative longer group.

 

How many improvisers here do this?

 

There are different types/levels of improvisation, from playing standard blues licks to a wide range of things.

 

I may think of stringing together pieces of songs or sections sometimes in an arrangement or composition. But I never calculate stringing together "set pieces" or "rehearsed/ingrained" ideas when improvising. That happens when just learning to improvise, but a true improvisor, according to pianist Paul Bley, "has a disdain for the known."

 

Of course, we can't be completely original; we can't avoid our influences, or even influencing ourselves sometimes. We have to build up a personal arsenal of licks, approaches and concepts (the bigger the arsenal the more you have to draw on.)

 

But then you try to move beyond all that when you improvise, the same as when you play - you throw away theory concerns and just play.

 

You musically grow while you improvise, and a shared experience with the listeners and the performer. It doesn't mean we can't play things we know; we don't discard them; we may use them as tools to build upon. The theory/data we absorb gives our improvising logic, shape and direction.

 

But by definition, improvising is about discovery, not a planned rehash of familiar materials. The journey's the thing, not the destination.

[GovernorSilver]

Thanks, SK.

 

I gained a renewed interest in classical music after I got some feedback on a jazz solo of mine that I posted, in which the critic, while kind overall, suggested I listen to Bach and other great composers for ideas on creating lines (in the context of jazz standards) that lead through the chords instead of simply hitting the chord tones, if that makes any sense.

 

I'm not smart enough to sit and analyze Bach and the like, so I'm going about it the brute force way - actually trying to play their works.

[MonksDream]

Very well said, SK.

[Joe Muscara]

Wow, SK. I wish there was an applause smiley, but this will have to do.