Tootler,

Interesting post. I am particularly interested to know where I can find examples or other evidence of Improvisation on Mozart cadenzas and of Baroque improvisation as you described in your post.

I am always hhungry for new musical experience and knowledge so would be genuinely grateful for the above.


On the subject of Basso continuo versus Jazz improvisation. there are three practical differences which are significant.

The first is the practice in Jazz of imrovising a seperate and distinct melody from the written melody of the tune. Even in Jazz this didn't occur straight away, as early Jazz improvisation centred around embellishing the written melody and improvisation developed from that until the time of coleman hawkins when jazz musicians began to improvise around the harmonies.

In the case of samuel pepys, I imagine that - while a useful diarist - he wasn't the most committed musician and was probably having trouble playing the chords in the same way that many people who don't really play the guitar find it hard to remember chord shapes or to keep up with chord changes in a song.

Basso continuo is very specific. It is more specific than a chord chart used by a folk or a jazz musician. It tells you which note is in the root, it tells you whiich notes to suspend and when and it tells you when to use passing notes such as passing 7ths as part of V I cadences.

The only freedom given is that to decide which way round the remaining chord tones are stacked.

So in a 6 chord (first inversion) you know that the 3rd of the chord is in the bass, and it is up to you to decide which way round the root and the fifth are voiced.

So the second difference is that In jazz, an accompanist is free to voice chords as he chooses - i.e - he can choose whatever inversion he likes, he can decide to use a pedal note, he can use rootless voicings, he can play a sympathetic countermelody ... the world is his oyster.

To do this he must of course have a good knowledge of counterpoint and in that respect there is a similarity.

But rhythmically he has more freedom to deviate and syncopate, harmonically he has the freedom to alter chords, add suspensions, extend chords, arpeggiate chiords, substitute them for a range of alternatives, plane through diatonically sumpathetic chords, embellish static harmony (CESH) and where appropriate to reharmonize, etc ... things which a baroque musician was not given the freedom to do even if we assume that the instrumentalists had the practical knowledge to improvise freely in the way that Jazz musicians do today.

Finally, the third difference is that in a band context where say a brass section is serving he purpose of accompanist, such as in Jerry mulligans band where there were no chording instruments like Piano and guitar, improvisation occurs in each instrumentalists choice of which melodic line to take through the harmonies.

This is something which definitely did not occur in Baroque music.

In Baroque music, independant contrapuntal harmony was written by the composer for individual voices to follow.

In jazz, horn players in horn sections must apply principles of counterpoint there and then to create smooth movement between chords. In situations where musicians haven't played together before, this is achieved by good communication and good practical application of principles of counterpoint and the harmonies arre improvised.

As with Chording instruments, the players are free to alter chords, add extensions, suspend notes etc according to their preference rather than as prescribed by a figured bass.

The principles of Jazz harmony are based on the principles of counterpoint as discovered in the Baroque era, but the scope for improvisation between the two does not compare.

So while figured bass is extremely specific and prescriptive, chord symbols allow for a significantly more arbitrary interpretation.

Am I right to suggest that we should be careful to distinguish between embellishment and improvisation?