How do you teach jazz improvistaion?

[petros]

If somebody is paying you to teach them how to improvise in the jazz idiom, what is your teaching method?

[David Loving]

I am not a teacher, but in my search for the real thing I ran across a 4 volume set of lessons by John Mehegan. He took an historical approach of styles from ragtime on. You might take a look at those books.

[Dasher]

I tell my disciples (I don't get any money, but answer questions) what they need to do is:

 

1: Learn the technique of the instrument.

 

2: (Also at the same time as 1) Learn harmony and basic theory, but not too much, lest they get caught in the 'but I shouldn't do that...) syndrome.

 

3: Listen to the musicians you like most. steal.

 

4: Listen to the music inside your head. Hum or sing it aloud. Now play what you're listening to.

 

The rest of it is simply expansion on those issues. I don't teach technique or theory, just listening to your own music and learning to get it out.

 

This avoids the cookie-cutter sound of the major music schools (I have nothing against these schools, they're just trying to teach en masse, and can't help the result...)

 

Dasher

[Dave Horne]

I divide the lesson into three sections - one for proper piano technique, another on basic theory and another getting the student to think for himself and take simple ideas and expand on them.

 

For me, all three are connected, you can't do one without the other two.

[schmoron13]

first and foremost, just teach them ii-V-I patterns!!! not even the licks over them, but rather start with simple voicings and work up to the bill evans, or quartel stuff.

[Dan South]

Dasher has the right idea. The student needs to know some rudimentary theory - what intervals are, how chords are structured, circle of fifths, etc. - but you don't want to overburden them with this. Better to have them make music and get the feel of improvising than harp over a few missed notes. They'll correct the note selection errors as the theory becomes second nature, but the theory will never become second nature if they're not PLAYING MUSIC.

 

I would urge the student to simplify. Play a solo on ONLY ROOT NOTES. Then play one on ONLY THIRDS or FIFTHS. This is actually more difficult than it sounds. When they're comfortable with the concept, have them try voice leading to connect the changes smoothly.

 

If they're playing a linear solo (as opposed to chordal, as on a guitar or piano), have them think that the instrument is singing the line. If they're not playing a wind instrument, have them actually sing along with the improvised notes sometimes (a la George Benson). This will encourage playing in phrases instead of infinite run-on lines (continuous finger twiddling method).

 

Finally, have them listen to tasteful soloists playing classic tunes. Something lyrical like Chet Baker or the Coltrane Love Songs album would be ideal for beginners, because it's not just a flurry of unintelligible noise to their untrained ears.

[marino]

I'm a jazz teacher for various schools, and I've got many students. This is not a question I like to deal with in a post, as there's no easy answer, and no unique 'method' - I'll try to touch on some important points.

 

I believe I jazz teacher should have

 

- A very good, all-around knowledge of jazz history and styles. It's not possible to be a master of all styles, but a very good knowledge is necessary.

 

- A strong will and ability to communicate his knowledge.

 

You're trying to convey three very imortant things:

- The technique of an instrument;

- A very definite music language;

- Most often, you're also teaching somebody how to express him/herself.

 

There can't be a any fixed method, because every student has a different starting point and attitude. If you're serious about teaching, you must consider this.

Among my students, I have conservatory grads, 'ear' musicians, absolute beginners, and people who simply need to improve. So each one has a different treatment.

 

Of course there are guidelines, like starting with the blues, gradually going to swing, then to bop, listening to a lot of music, etc. - but going into the details of a complete learning 'path' for every student type, would easily fill a magazine.... Sorry to be so generic. But if you ask specific questions, I'll be glad to answer.

[marino]

I found an old post with a few informations about my teaching... Please take them with a grain of salt.

 

Here's how I approach jazz teaching at a beginner/intermediate level, generally speaking:

 

When the student comes to improvise on 'tonal' pieces, as opposed to simple blues tunes or very easy songs, he/she is supposed to know the scale/tone chords for major and minor scales, and the relative modes. As the studies progress, I also introduce the modes of the melodic minor, plus the symmetrical scales (diminished, whole tone, augmented).

It's important that this knowledge is achieved with two parallel methods:

 

1) Playing every chord and mode in succession along a single scale (for example, in Bb major, play Bb maj7/Bb Ionian, Cm7/C Dorian, and so on;

 

2) Playing every mode from a single tonic (for example, Bbmaj7/Bb Ionian as I, then Bbm7/Bb Dorian as II, then Bbm7/Bb Phrigian as III, Bbmaj7/Bb Lydian as IV, and so on - same for the other scale types).

 

They're playing chords in both hands, then the modes in both hands, then chord with l.h. and modes with r.h., then the inverse.

 

Also, they do a lot of harmonic continuity - that is, linking chord progressions with common tones, and trying to leave each common tone in the same 'voice' with respect to the chord. This helps their voice leading and general harmonic sense. They do it with closed chords first, then with various kinds of open positions. Directly on the keyboard, not on paper! I wrote lots of progressions for didactic purposes, and of course working on actual songs is good too.

 

When preparing a piece, they're supposed to improvise for a while on each chord alone, then on the common chords of a single key, then on pairs of keys, as they happen in the piece.

 

Also, I have them play the arpeggio of each chord in every inversion.

 

When playing on II-V-I (as an example), I usually point out the possible alternative modes for them: A possibility is Dorian b2 - Diminished - Lydian (instead of Dorian - Mixolydian - Ionian).

 

Finally, they play the 'Big Scale': Going up and down the keyboard in time, following the structure of the piece, and changing keys when the piece changes. Continuous strings of notes, first in fourths, then in eight notes, even in eight-note triplets if they can do it.

 

I teach them the Greek/Gregorian names for the modes, just because is the most common nomenclature, but I always tell them the true origin of the names, and also how they've changed from Greek music to Gregorian.

They also have to know the alternative symbols for the various chords; unfortunately, there's no standardization, and we have to aknowledge that. To me it's pointless to debate which names are the most 'correct' - we're talking very practical things here, so the only important thing is to be able to communicate.

 

Speaking of which... a few jazz musician tend to become religious about 'their' music, and what's worse, about teaching. To me, encouraging students to listen to as many different kinds of music as they can, and explaining that they're not learning 'the music', but a very specific kind of music, is one of the best thing a teacher can do.

 

Back to teaching improvisation... Learning to play from the modes exclusively can bring to excessive diatonic playing, so as soon as a student can handle it, I have him studying all possible chromatic appoggiaturas to the chord tones: Single from above, single from below, double starting from above, double starting from below. At this point, I usually also bring the matter of bebop phrasing: Ending and starting a phrase on the upbeat, multiple syncopes, a good alternation of duplets and triolets, etc.

A good listening diet of Charlie Parker and Bud Powell solos can also help, as the reading of a few transcriptions and learning some bebop themes.

 

Till this point, I try to keep left hand voicing really simple. But while they are doing this kind of study, I also start them doing technical exercises for tenths. A little at a time, the concept of 'solo piano' with the left hand mainly in tenths, is introduced. This is usually a big turning point, because the melodic improvisation is naturally blocked by the extra attention on the left hand. There's really no rule for approaching this - like in many other things, every student needs different advice.

 

After having playing a dozen or so solo pieces, a good student is usually ready for starting with the Bill Evans voicings, and enter what we could call the 'advanced' level... Then comes modal playing, quartal/pentatonic phrasing, playing outside, rhythmic displacement, 'floating', chord substitutions, complete reharmonization, playing before/on/after the beat, modern solo piano... But let't stop here for today.

 

Also important is to develop thematic playing (related to the tune's theme) and free playing (unrelated to harmony). And of course, every tune has its own feel and atmosphere, which you can choose to respect - or not.

 

Please understand that this is an ideal path for an ideal student. In real life, every student has different needs, goals and starting points, so a sensible teacher has to adapt to that of course.

Some students are happy to be flooded with exercises, for example, while others just want to play.

And I didn't even mention technique, or styles!

 

I find teaching music (to a good student) to be one of the most intriguing, exhilarating, exhausting, satisfying human activities. You get to be a psychologist, phisiotherapist, artist, father, and of course a teacher.

[petros]

Thank you for your words of wisdom!

[Togakure99]

Walk in, count "a one, a two, a one two three!" and sit back and listen.

[ptehan]

to try to add to everyone else's great ideas, i've never really given lessons, but if I were, the major focus of the beginning of the lessons would be on left hand technique. forget about right hand improvisation for a long while. if they can learn tenths and voice leading in a solo setting, they'll have no problem at all with sparser shell voicings.

 

once that left hand foundation is there, i'd move to the right hand

 

an old adage that i think really holds true is for people to learn the words to the standards they're trying to play, even if there's no singer. i think it really helps to hold people back from endless robotic arpeggios if they are forced to think about what the song's about and to try to think of a lyrical line that a person could sing.

[Dave Pierce]

I don't teach, but when I was a pretty young kid (playing trumpet in school jazz band), a teacher told me something to the effect of:

 

"Everything you need for improv is already in your head. You may not know it yet, but it's there. When little melodies or tunes show up in your head, let them run, don't shut them off or turn them into something on the radio. Then start humming or singing them. Pretty soon you'll be able to play them."

 

I got what he was saying, and it many ways it was a life-changing event for me.

 

--Dave

[Soultwist]

Jazz can´t be taught...but it can be learned...some wise person said, and I agree...

[alby]

How useful is transcribing solo's in context of this topic - learning to improvise in the jazz idiom?

 

I have done it a couple of times. It is pretty time consuming, if you have a complicated solo. I am not sure how more useful it is than listening to lots of jazz.

 

It may help to solve specific problems like how to phrase a good solo over some difficult changes. Or how to phrase a good solo over a hardly changing chord progression.

 

Maybe I have to keep at it transcribing more solos.

 

Alby

[petros]

I have transcribed solos but it didn't help me to really solo better. It does help strengthen my ear. Mulgrew Miller mentioned at a piano clinic that he never transcribed solos or memorized them. The main benefit I have gotten out of transcribing is finding a lick or pattern that I like enough to memorize and learn well enough to play in all 12 keys.

[Dave Horne]

Re transcribing, I feel it's a great exercise to take musical information from a CD, for example, and transfer it to paper. This, of course, brings in the entire discussion of being literate and you can take your own side in that discussion.

 

The ability to transcribe and to do it efficiently is part of being a musician. Someone wants a particular song played at a wedding or a party and they just have the CD and you brush up on your skills once again.

 

Transcribing solos is also a great way to get inside of the head of the performer, to analyze what the performer is playing. In the long run, it can't hurt you to be able to transcribe and you might learn a thing or two ... and maybe borrow an idea or two as well.

[alby]

Hi David,

 

To get a song from CD or Radio, an create a lead sheet from it, is an invaluable skill. However, the quickest way to get a song for a wedding onto paper is search the internet for the midi file of the song, suck into Band in the Box 12, and get the program to pump out the lead sheet.

 

The issue is not whether you know how to transcribe music, but the worth of transcribing jazz solos, as a medium to learn jazz improvisations.

 

I am not sure learning someone else's solo over a song adds a lot to learing how to improvise. That is my opinion. I might just go and transcribe another solo and see if it helps.

 

I'll be back in couple of days.

 

alby

[Dave Horne]

Analysis and transcribing go hand in hand. I personally feel it helps me better hear music.

 

Yes, the quickest way to get a lead sheet is how you mentioned, but there is something to be said for actually doing the work yourself. Transcribing may not make one a better improviser, but it will make one a better all around musician. It's just part of being a musician and it takes a fair amount of time and hard work to do it quickly.

 

You may not see an improvement after one song or one solo, but you may see an improvement in your playing (and general musicianship) after transcribing 50 solos.

[D_dup3]

Originally posted by Dave Horne:

... but there is something to be said for actually doing the work yourself. Transcribing may not make one a better improviser, but it will make one a better all around musician...

That "something" is the increase in ear training/pitch-recognition.

Theory & general knowledge are valuable but the single most valuable talent any musician can have is the ability to hear music---to recognize & understand/analyze what's happening, since that is the basis of theory & music.

[alby]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Dave Horne:

... but there is something to be said for actually doing the work yourself. Transcribing may not make one a better improviser, but it will make one a better all around musician...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

That "something" is the increase in ear training/pitch-recognition.

Theory & general knowledge are valuable but the single most valuable talent any musician can have is the ability to hear music---to recognize & understand/analyze what's happening, since that is the basis of theory & music.

I think these are the crucial points about transcribing. Its a good exercise for making you an good around musician, good for ear training, etc. So really, it shouldn't matter what you transcribe, whether it is Rachmaninov's piano concerto or Pop goes the weasal.

 

The question still is -

"Does transcribing other people's solos make you a better at improvising Jazz?"

 

regards

alby

[Soultwist]

"The question still is -

"Does transcribing other people's solos make you a better at improvising Jazz?"

 

It definately does, based from personal experience and how top players learned their craft. The other day I was perusing a book of Herbie Hancock transcriptions and in the foreword there where the words of mr Hancock himself: When he was a young music student he heard a guy playing something that Herbie liked so he asked him what it was. He said it was jazz, so what did Herbie do? Get some dubious teacher to tech him? Bought any books to learn from? No, he went home, picked at tune he liked that sounded jazz and TRANSCRIBED it,. It took him several weeks but in the end he cracked the code. Transcribing is the fastest way to learn jazz and jazz is all about improvisation so there you are...

 

And another good thing about transcribing is that you also learn how to read and write sheet music.

[Dave Horne]

The question still is -

"Does transcribing other people's solos make you a better at improvising Jazz?"

 

regards

alby

 

In a general sense, I would have to say yes. After you've transcribed _many_ solos (and unless you're a complete dolt), you will have better ear to mind coordination. If anything can improve your 'ears', it will also improve your ability to deal with musical information and improvising. (Why do I get the feeling this will turn out to be a 'literate' discussion about famous and successful musicians who never transcribed a solo.)

 

I should also add the better musicians (improvisers) with whom I have worked were always excellent at transcribing.

 

FWIW, some of the better arrangers with whom I have worked were always excellent at transcribing complete works as well. So, you can put my reply in the 'yes' column, transcribing solos will make you a better improviser. At the very least, it will improve you in a broader musical sense which will have a positive impact on your ability to improvise.

[KybdCanuck]

There are three important things that I want my piano students to have:

 

1.) Technical ability--scales, arpeggio's, etc.

 

2.) Theory--knowing modes, chords, scales, etc.

 

***3.) TRANSCRIBING! I know there are _some_ players out there that never transcribed a lick in their life, but MOST of the accomplished jazz musicians I know have spent plenty of time transcribing. I can think of one example, a friend of mine that went out as a sideman for Clark Terry--this guy was an unbeleivable T-bone player. But everyone who knew him as a kid said he spent his high school years locked in his room, learning solos. Does he sound like someone else? No. What happens, as you transcribe many songs, is that the "language" of jazz becomes integrated into you and you start to become conversational in it. Just like a kid learning to speak their first time--they start out trying to repeat what they hear, and eventually are fluent enough to construct their own sentences. People who want to become authors don't just read a dictionary abd then write a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, they study other books and the way the author constructed them.

 

Don't think transcribing one song counts, either- you have to do many. The first few suck--they're really hard, but then it starts getting easier, and quicker.

 

Final thought--after learning to play recordings,

try to write them down. It helps you to understand the theory behind the solo, and your rhythmic sense will increase dramaticaly, too.

 

Anyway, my 2 cents...

 

--MT

[CP]

Well my piano teacher and many others I know disagree with that transcribing analogy. If one only learns to speak by listening to others, why do we teach english in school, making it mandatory until the 12th grade. It's one thing to sound like the person you are emulating. Its a whole other story to understand why you are saying the words you are saying. I'm not saying transcribing is useless, it's just an enormous waste of time. When I say transcribing, I mean writing down note for note on a piece of paper. I don't mean listening to someone you like and trying to figure out what he is playing.

 

I believe that Duke Ellington said it, "improvisation is spontaneous composition". If I'm playing Herbie's licks or whoever's licks, that is not spontaneous.

 

Just my two cents.

[Dave Horne]

Originally posted by KybdCanuck:

There are three important things that I want my piano students to have:

 

1.) Technical ability--scales, arpeggio's, etc.

 

2.) Theory--knowing modes, chords, scales, etc.

 

***3.) TRANSCRIBING! I know there are _some_ players out there that never transcribed a lick in their life, but MOST of the accomplished jazz musicians I know have spent plenty of time transcribing. I can think of one example, a friend of mine that went out as a sideman for Clark Terry--this guy was an unbeleivable T-bone player. But everyone who knew him as a kid said he spent his high school years locked in his room, learning solos. Does he sound like someone else? No. What happens, as you transcribe many songs, is that the "language" of jazz becomes integrated into you and you start to become conversational in it. Just like a kid learning to speak their first time--they start out trying to repeat what they hear, and eventually are fluent enough to construct their own sentences. People who want to become authors don't just read a dictionary abd then write a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, they study other books and the way the author constructed them.

 

Don't think transcribing one song counts, either- you have to do many. The first few suck--they're really hard, but then it starts getting easier, and quicker.

 

Final thought--after learning to play recordings,

try to write them down. It helps you to understand the theory behind the solo, and your rhythmic sense will increase dramaticaly, too.

 

Anyway, my 2 cents...

 

--MT

KybdCanuck, if this turns into a 'literacy' war, I'll let you lead the charge. I agree with everything you wrote.

[CP]

Who said anything about "literacy"? I can read music, as can all the people I know who don't believe in transcribing. Those are two different arguments, thank you. And to stop you from taking that argument any further, I believe everyone should learn music theory. I just don't look down on those who don't. So I'm sure no one will bring up the "literacy" argument if you don't.

[Dave Horne]

Originally posted by CP:

Who said anything about "literacy"? I can read music, as can all the people I know who don't believe in transcribing. Those are two different arguments, thank you. And to stop you from taking that argument any further, I believe everyone should learn music theory. I just don't look down on those who don't. So I'm sure no one will bring up the "literacy" argument if you don't.

I believe you may have missed my point. There was a thread re literacy a while ago and there were those who argued the ability to be musically literate was not a factor in making music ... or something to that effect.

 

If we take the issue of transcribing, we could have, in essence, the same type of argument, people stating that something has little or no worth while admitting at the same time that they really haven't transcribed much (or anything) ... thus my comment re literacy.

[Togakure99]

I don't understand how anyone can play music at all without knowing any music theory. Without it, you're just plunking down randomly, and that's not music. Anyone who can sit at an instrument and make music from it possesses SOME kind of music theory knowledge, even if they don't know the formal and accepted terminology. Transcribing/reading are simply ways of expressing this theory on paper.

 

I don't think it's a question of learning or not learning music theory or being able to read or not read, it's more of a question of HOW MUCH you know and whether or not you can expess that knowledge in an understandable way.

[CP]

Originally posted by Dave Horne:

Originally posted by CP:

Who said anything about "literacy"? I can read music, as can all the people I know who don't believe in transcribing. Those are two different arguments, thank you. And to stop you from taking that argument any further, I believe everyone should learn music theory. I just don't look down on those who don't. So I'm sure no one will bring up the "literacy" argument if you don't.

I believe you may have missed my point. There was a thread re literacy a while ago and there were those who argued the ability to be musically literate was not a factor in making music ... or something to that effect.

 

If we take the issue of transcribing, we could have, in essence, the same type of argument, people stating that something has little or no worth while admitting at the same time that they really haven't transcribed much (or anything) ... thus my comment re literacy.

Sorry if I misunderstood. I see your point.

[henryrobinett]

I believe transcribing solos is crucial in understanding the language of jazz. For most of my earlier professional playing life I fought against this concept. I think I play pretty well regardless that I perhaps didn't transcribe as much as someone else might think I should have. Nonetheless I did my fair share from Chick Corea, Cedar Walton, Coltrane, Parker, Yusef Lateef, Dexter Gordon, Johnny Griffin, Ben Webster, Dave Liebman, McCoy Tyner, Grossman, Michael Brecker, Oscar Peterson, Woody Shaw, Hubbard, Robben Ford, and countless tunes and arranegemnts, etc.. I guess I've done more than I thought!

 

It all helps the ear and helps ground oneself in the language.

 

But yes, jazz IS spontaneous composition and it IS about playing your own stuff, to a degree. Jazz is also a very conservative school. Most players don't REALLY want you to play your own stuff, not if it sounds too unique.