Hi M. Ted,

I did get your response and I thank you.

You said,
"My approach to improvisation is to begin with rhythmic phrases and cadences, then to impose the appropriate scales over them."

It's a good way. It's consciously applying theory to music. But it's an analytical way. Good for a start. But I believe that at some point, the student needs to be able to articulate his/her own idea from what comes out of his/her head. I believe that this is the process by which improvisation develops.

"teach the way that call and response works within the blues progression, and then to help them to find a rhythmic phrase that they "feel'"--

OK. Then there comes a time when they invent that phrase even if it means a modest two or three note pattern.


You say,
"I am talking about soloing here, in creating the accompaniment, it works with the same elements, though--"

Yes you're right. But there comes a time when these elements are not used ver batim. They are changed purposely and often sub-conciously.
This is true improvisation, I believe.

You make an interesting point.

" I think it is, at least from a creative point of view, easier to improvise over that Db7Aug11 chord than over a Bluegrass C triad, since there are many more things that you can play over the Db7Aug11 and still stay within the harmonic style."

I guess a lot has to do with whom you are playing and their values about what they consider aesthetically to be "right" or "in the style". I have observed that this differs wildly from one musical group to another in every form of music. There are those who approach music from a pedantic point of view and if the world doesn't conform to their idea, they consider it "wrong". There is a lot of this kind of thing in the folk music world but here again, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

You said,
"In a way, composition is really basically improvisation, and the great classical masters tended to be great improvisors, and the great jazz players have tended to be great composers, as well."


I think that there is a difference between composing and improvising.
A composer has a structural sense of a preordained idea. This doesn't mean that the composer can't improvise. But the improviser is willing to let the structure happen on the spot or go along with that structure which is being imposed. Often, improvising musicians do have a dry spell and fall back on patterns they have memorized or solos that have become lauded by officianados and critics.

I go back to Norman Granz's comments to Joe Pass on a record date, "What are you trying to do? Get it right?" Assumption here is that each improvisation is really a "snowflake". A one-of-a-kind that when realized will never come again. Sure it can be recreated, studied and played but it is no longer in a process of improvisation.
An interesting analogy was given by Sam Hinton, a folk song scholar who said that a variant of a folk song is a picture of a bird in flight. This can be said for improvisations that have been written down.

You said,

"a player has to have a handle on three elements--the rhythmic phrases that are appropriate, melodic material (such as the melody itself, and the scale that it uses), and structure of the tune that is the backdrop for improvisation--"

I like to think of it this way, the melodic line, the harmonic line and the bass line. Then the rhythm too. What is appropriate? It's what the musicians can agree upon or accept. Then I guess the audience has something to say about it. When Bird started playing, nothing was appropriate to many "traditional" swing musicians. It took some time. I doubt whether many Mudcatters would get into Cecil Taylor let along Monk. The innovators define the style such as Louis in trad jazz or Bird and Monk in be-bop. One of the problems in trying to define folk music is the issue of musical style. There is not an agreement or consensus that would define the term folk music.
But in that, every innovator or influential performer essentially helps to define that term for some people. Usually the innovator in jazz hears stuff that no one has put down before. It's synthesized from preceding elements that have been learned but it's surprising effect is because it is new and on the spot. Bird may have practiced with scale books but what came out of his head was startling and not done the same way before. It was new because it was "now" and "on the spot".


Thanks for your comments.
I guess we needed more time on the "improvisation" thread.

Frank