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

[ditch wrestler <ditchwrestler@yahoo.com>]

That quote from Derek makes total sense, especially the "...intuitive descriptions were preferred...." statement.

 

At the Eddie Prevost workshop, Eddie mentioned that even though Derek played with some people on numerous occasions, Derek was always interested in playing with new people and then, more often than not, lost interest when some common language or commonalities were discovered.

 

 

Ted Harms.

Krispen Hartung <khartung@cableone.net> wrote:

Finally!  I found the Bailey passage on transcription and improvisation:

"Transcription, it seems to me, far from being an aid to understanding improvisation, deflect attention towards peripheral considerations. In fact there is very little technical description of any kind, simply because almost all the musicians I spoke to chose to discuss improvisation mainly in 'abstract' terms. In fact there was a commonly held suspicion that a close technical approach was, for this subject, uninformative. In general, intuitive descriptions were preferred...."

 

I find this very interesting, especially that the viewpoint was shared by most all his interviewees (successful improvisers). And this is the original idea in the book that resonated well with me personally, and my personal learning experience and history of improvisation.  The only thing technical that has contributed to me being able to improvise is the physical dexterity and fretboard knowledge I acquired after playing basic and rudimentary exercises for years and year....sort of like being an athlete and stretching and working out prior to a competition.  Beyond this, my ability to improvise was all learned non-technically. Musical ideas spontaneously pop in my head (based on thoughts, feelings, etc), and the question is whether I have the physical dexterity and mental mapping of my fretboard to be able to execute them quickly in real time. The intersection of these ideas and my ability to execute is, for me, the central thrust of my entire improvisational energy. Everything else is peripheral.

 

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.

 

Free and spontaneous improvisation is so fascinating to me. On one hand, it seems so mystical and hard to pin down; yet on the other hand, doing it is the most simple, natural, and free thing in the world for me. It is liberating.

Kris

 

"Indeed, naturally I think that a film should have a beginning, middle, and an end — but not necessarily in that order."   Jean Luc Goddard

between 0000-00-00 and 9999-99-99