Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner - Non Classical techniques for practicing fake book or improvisation

Fingers,

Gyro is known to make these kind of outrageous comments, maybe he really is a genius and 99% of us in the forum is wrong . After all, he is telling everyone how to play jazz even though he doesn't play jazz at all!! it's like someone who has never taken a college biology giving you medical advice

Wizard of Oz, I'll repeat. Suppose
you study jazz piano for years out
of a textbook and/or with a jazz
pianist, always striving to sound
like your idols, the jazz greats.
And after a long time doing this
you end up a polished jazz pianist
who sounds just like a lesser version
of some jazz great. I think that's
absolutely the worst thing imaginable,
worse than a beginner who can barely
play a note. You've essentially
replicated another pianist's
playing, and not as well either.
What's the point of doing that? I
can pull out a CD and listen to
better playing from the real artist.
You've spent years accomplishing what
is essentially worthless. Your
playing is polished but unoriginal,
just a bad copy of someone else's
playing. Someone already plays like
that. Copying him is worthless. You
need to develop your own style of playing,
and to do that it's better not to
even listen to the jazz greats,
lest you fall into the trap of
trying to copy them instead of
finding your own way.

The first thing you need to do is narrow your focus - take one song from the fake book at a time. Learn the song as written. Then, and this is the most important part, listen to other pianists play the song - get some recordings. Listen to them over and over. Listen to how other pianists approach the song - how they voice chords, how they harmonize the melody line, how they comp during their solos, how they interact with the band - there is a lot you need to be aware of and listen for - these are just for starters. Then start to incorporate some of their ideas into your playing of the song - a little Herbie here, a little Oscar there, a little Ahamad, a little Chic - whoever - it's all good. Then go on to another song - repeat this for the next 10 years or so and remember - the best players are the best listeners>

I was thinking of this thread, and the rather silly statements sometimes made here that one should not try to trascribe or imitate the great jazz artists of the past when I read this quote from an interview with the great sax player Jimmy Heath:

"Miles loved Freddie Webster, who had played with Jimmie Lunceford. Freddie was a guy with a beautiful sound. Miles knew him. Freddie didn’t make but a few recordings in the 1940s, and all were historic for trumpet players. Freddie got a sound curve that Miles wanted to get. Nobody wants to be just like someone else. But they’re inspired by their predecessors, and they learn what they did. Then they come up in a matter of time with their own sound. Nobody can play sax like Coltrane, Sonny Rollins or Hank Mobley. But eventually you get your own sound. Clifford Brown loved Fats Navarro, and Lee Morgan loved Clifford Brown. But each had his own thing. It’s a continuum."

The more I understand the history, the more ridiculous the idea of absolute originality seems. As if we could start from scratch in a vacuum without influence - we'd have to create our own instruments as well if we want to escape our history of tuning systems...

I suppose it's plausible, though one is very likely to spend a lot of time reinventing the wheel. Due to ignorance of what's out there, thinking they've done something completely new which is really hundreds of years old. It's a very lazy and naive approach to ignore tradition. I think we've seen a lot of garbage art come out of this mindset.

Every great new style was part of a continuum. Bit by bit the established way of doing things was elaborated, modified, experimented with. Different musics cross-pollinated, an idea from here, an idea from there, combined in a novel way. I'd rather hear some older concept done REALLY WELL. All the great innovators were masters of the existing styles before they forged new rules.

I was going to hold my peace since I'm a beginner unfamiliar with jazz (though I really want to learn to play from a fake book), but Gyro's statements about not imitating other pianists and being more original struck a chord in me.

At first I thought, "Gyro, strangely, does make sense. What good would it do to just ape someone else? Originality is highly valued in this day and age!" However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized how the opposite holds true. Imitation is the way to find your own voice. By imitating others, you realize what's good and then you try improving on it. It also helps that what you're imitating is a good example from the start. The two areas in which I am reasonably good at, illustration and foreign languages, I learned from imitating others. I'd say my art is a blend of different styles. My Japanese isn't 100% perfect, but people say I speak it quite well and with a good accent and are surprised when I tell them I only lived in the country for a year. I can also confidently say that I can speak and read/write English better than 99% of the population in my country. This wasn't achieved by just making up my own sentences. I took good, correct examples and imitated them, which is why my speech sounds natural. (Btw, I find that studying grammar alone won't make you speak well.)

David Nevue, one of my favorite pianist-composers, says that he started by imitating George Winston piano records measure by measure while he was on the piano. I don't think he sounds like George Winston, and I personally like Nevue's music better than Winston's!

Gyro, it's becoming quite obvious that you aren't a musician at all, in jazz, classical, heck even rock and roll.

Until you post a song, even just one so I can hear your "own voice" then all your advice is worthless.

It's like telling someone to learn French without ever hearing it. Tell me, how did Oscar Peterson learn jazz without listening to Art Tatum? Or the countless guitar players who listened to Jimi Hendrix.

You have no clue man.

You don't start in a complete vacuum.
Presumably you've played the piano--
most likely in classical lessons--
for a number of years before you
get into jazz. And then you've
heard all kinds of music growing
up: classical, rock, jazz, popular,
country, etc. So everyone,
even a beginner, has tons
of musical material to draw on
when he improvises.

But then the fossilized jazz folks
say that in order to play jazz you've
got to do it "right," according to how
the jazz greats did it, textbook jazz
playing according to set formulas,
with no originality or innovation
allowed, almost like in classical piano.
So what everyone ends up doing is
essentially copying the playing of
others, which is why everyone sounds
almost the same. What's the point
of doing that, producing carbon
copies of the jazz greats? You
might as well not play if you're going to
do that, because we've heard all
of it before.

Now Wizard of Oz wants me to post
something so he can see how it checks
out with the forumlas, because that's
the only thing he knows, copying
from set patterns. I'll do you a
favor Wizard and not post anything.
Then there's a chance that one
day you'll stop copying others and
develop your own style.

I do agree with the idea others have mentioned that my best path to creating something new is to learn and then build on the work of others. Learn the "vocabulary" first, and then find my own way to assemble and evolve the "words". You don't start to create a novel by making up your own language.

But more realistic, for me, is the realization that if I could actually imitate great players, and do it passably well, I'd be pretty satisfied. Original -- my foot. I'd be delighted to be able to jam like Bruce Hornsby or swing like Oscar Petersen. I'd call that "carbon copy" good enough and be happy.

Gyro - Would you do me a favor and post some of your improvisation? I am quite new to this and have not yet tried to even "copy" others. I would love to hear the "Gyro" sound.

Thank you,

Barb

The day Gyro posts his own music is the day I sound better than Keith Jarrett, Herbie Hancock, Bill Evans, Oscar all put together.

ALL jazz musicians learn by copying and imitating other players. After you've done it enough THEN you learn to develop your own voice. It takes years to do that. Listen to some of the newer players today, Brad Melhdau, Marcin Wasilewski, Taylor Eigsti, Esbjorn Svennson (RIP).... you can distinctly tell they have learned from the past jazz masters, yet have incorporated their own personality and style.

Many of these players have listed the old masters as big influences and inspirations. Yet they have pushed beyond that so we can hear their voice. Listen to Diana Krall, you hear bits of Oscar Peterson in there. But you hear her come through.

Gyro, you saying "find your own voice" would disregard the entire classical genre. They are playing the works of other people, like Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Mozart. Some players spend their entire lives just doing that, so is that a waste in your opinion?

I am calling you out to post your own playing otherwise you are contradicting everything you say. Let's hear YOUR voice.

Like you said, it's better for a beginner to play a few bad notes than to sound almost as good as the masters. You sir are that beginner.

Swingin' Barb, I'll do you a great favor
and not post something. You don't
want to listen to me play or to anyone
else. You've already got plenty
of material to work with if you're
a Sudnow player, intermeditate classical
student, etc. Furthermore you've
listened to music all your life
and it's all stored in your psyche
and can be tapped as you improvise.

Sit down at the piano and dig in with
both hands and all ten fingers, and
play stuff purely by ear, with no
consideration for any theory. You're
not trying to sound like anyone in particular
or produce any particular type of
sound. You are producing your own sound,
influenced by all of your experience
with music. If what comes out initially
sounds like a chimp pounding on a piano,
that's good, not bad, and you know you're
on the right track, because you want to
sound different. In any case, that's a
million times better than a jazz player
who just copies the sound of the jazz
greats. You might as well not play if
you're just going to do that.

Gyro

By all means Please name one great jazz pianist who NEVER imitated other great pianist. Which pianist do you consider original in their approach? Can you even name a single jazz pianist that you like listening to?

You talk about how the "forces that be" are turning jazz into a 'fossilized' art.. Can you name a one well-known jazz pianist who is alive&at the forefront of jazz scene right now? Because If you listen to David Kikoski, Robert Glasper, Geri Allen, Tigran Hamasyan.. etc you will never come to those kind of conclusion.




The only thing we want to know is whether your playing sounds anything like jazz.. I think we are just curious as to whether you really know what you are talking about. I mean how much do you really know about jazz?


Guess what?? , the truth is that most great players spent a lot of time copying others, but they end up becoming their own thing anyways. Just because you copy other people it doesn't mean you lose your originality..those two things are mutually exclusive. You don't hear people saying that Geoffrey Keezer sounds too much like McCoy Tyner, or Gearld clayton sounding too much like Oscar Peterson.. but then again, I doubt you know who any of these people are.

What you just described is free improvisation.. how in the world does this help you with your jazz improv, or playing a tune in a fakebook, in which you have to play over a specific harmony and rhythm? Do you realize the methods you have been posting has nothing to do with the topic?


And what makes you think it's " a million times better than a jazz player who just copies the sound of the jazz greats?" Isn't that just matter of opinion? If you prefer hearing something that sounds like "chimp pounding on a piano" over someone who imitates a jazz greats.. then well.. I am glad I don't have the same kind of taste in music as you do

Again I need to ask you what makes you think that copying someone and being original have to be mutually exclusive? Can't you do both? What makes you in an expert in these issue?

Gyro - I understand your point about being creative, and striving to create your own style. And I agree, at least partially. But we disagree on how best to accomplish that goal. IMHO, I believe in order to best create one's own style, one must first understand what has been done before - perhaps not everything, but much of it: Then, and only then is one in a position to creat anew. Certainly Einstein understood the limitations of Newtonian physics before he went on to create Special and then General relatively. And although music, an art, is not a science, certainly music, be it classical, jazz, pop, whatever genre, evolves as musicians add their particular styles and nuances to those of their predecessors. You simply can't ignore what has preceeded you.

Gyro, you irritate me with what you write. If I were to take your advice, I might as well stop playing the piano altogether and never listen to music at all. Lest I end up copying someone and be tainted by how they sound. Better to just use my elbows and fists and see what comes out of the piano. At least I'll be original!


How did you manage to write 3600 posts?!?!? Wait, I think I've read that one before, about sounding like a chimp. Do you recycle everything?

Let me ask you one last question, which musicians do you like the most and who did you listen to as a kid and now?
Who inspired you to learn to play the piano?

Don't tell me you learned because you wanted to find your own voice, I know you listen to some music. I have a bad feeling it's Yanni though!!!

I also think there is a huge problem in the way gyro describes "playing by ear".. what does he really mean? I hear Lizst's Hungarian rhapsody in my head, but I do not have the ability to reproduce that music just by ear.

I can imagine how much harder it would be to play be ear esp if you are a beginner.. without any training, how in the world will you be able to hear and play complex chords just by ear? how many of us are capable of hearing 3-4 voice counterpoint, and actually be able to play them on the spot?

I think what Gyro really means is free-playing, and you aren't necessary hearing what you are playing when you do his exercise. Playing by ear is not as easy as Gyro puts it... if you really want to play by ear, try singing your melody as you play it with your right hand, and see how easy that is.

The problem here is that Gyro doesn't realize how important muscle memory is in improv/playing by ear. We imitate and copy what we like so that our hands will know where to go when we recall a melodic idea.

Also most of us are not born with the ability to identify intervals/chord quality.. etc..chances are that you need quite a lot of training to be able to make sense of what you are hearing in your head... and we also build muscle memory to reproduce that sound. Unless Gyro has perfect pitch(which he might).. I really doubt that he is actually "playing by ear".

Hi Gyro,

are you sometimes inspired by somebodies composition or playing? Can you think of basic patterns which you follow in your own way? Do you know that doing this, is the Art of Improvisation?

Look, for me it doesn't matter if the pattern I follow is of classical, Jazz or own origin. But important is, to follow a pattern, rhythmically or harmonically or both.

If you write something here in this forum, there is allways an idea behind it. You are not writing just words without any context. In your writings there is always a matter behind it. And there is a form in your writing and still it is your own writing. The same happens in music.

Look, you know maybe Beethovens Moonlight Serenade. I love this song and when I play it I do it my own way. I mean, there is still the form and harmony Beethoven did, but I am speaking in my language over the same form and harmony. ---> www.cisum.info/mondschein.mp3

If I would not have practiced certain improvisation skills, for me it would be impossible to express myself in that way.
I am born in a world of tonal music and so I prefer to improvise/speak in a tonal form. I express myself like I feel.
Beethoven was a great improviser and his music was born out of the classical tradition and not out of nowhere.

Cadenzas are a natural form of resolving tensions. All music is about that. These formulas have so many aspects. You have to learn them. The more variety you learn the more freedom you'll get.

Here is another example of my improvisations. The composer is Anatoly Lyadov ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Lyadov

His prelude was really inspiring for me. I love his harmonic concept!
Now, please have a look at the music first. You can read music, right? It is here on page 7 ---> http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/2/29/IMSLP06754-Liadov_-_Op.40_-_Etude___3_Preludes.pdf

Now read it carefully and try to imagine the melody in your head. Try also to improvise over it.

Than listen to my version. ---> www.cisum.info/prelude.mp3
Is this what you call a carbon copy?

wow, cudo, I like your example, that is very nice! And helpful, I'm just starting to look at fake books.

Larry B, I'd like to address what
you posted, about how if you could
play even a fraction as well as
some jazz great, then you'd be
satisfied with that.

This is a very natural attitude in
a jazz novice. Indeed I used to feel
exactly the same way, and to that
end I tried to wade through 3 jazz
piano method books, as well as books
on classical harmony, both types of
counterpoint, orchestration, and form,
because I thought that knowing the theory
behind it all would be necessary to play
and improvise jazz and popular music.
However, I didn't get very far and soon
gave up on all of the books. There
were a number of reasons for this.
First, I'm mainly a classical player,
and my daily practice session is
dominated by difficult classical
repertoire, leaving little time for
anything else. Second, wading through
all that theory was the most tedious
thing imaginable, and I just couldn't
handle it. Third, although I didn't
get very far into the books, what I
did cover didn't help me one bit
in improvising jazz and popular.
Fourth, reading between the lines,
the books seemed to be saying that
it all comes down in the end to playing
by ear. Fifth, I began to think that
this is not what jazz is all about.
Some the best early jazz players
could not even read music and could
never have waded through a theory
book. They improvised and innovated
on the fly, never concerned for a second
about if their playing was in accordance
with some textbook.

Because of all the above reasons I
finally decided to give up on all theory
study, but since I still wanted to play
jazz, the only way available to me then
was to just dig in and play it, purely
by ear. So that's was I did, and it
was a revelation. I was creating my
own music, free from the restraints of
theory books. There were no rules,
no right or wrong notes, no patterns
to follow. This was pure music, created
by me on the spot. It was the most
enjoyable thing I had ever done at
the piano.

Initially, I thought that I would do
this for a while and train my ear,
and then this would help me to
arrange, play from fake books, etc.
But now I've lost all interest in doing
that. Why bother with arranging someone
else's tunes, when you can create your
own music, every day? And questions
like if I can ever play a fraction
as well as some jazz great are now
irrelevant. I'm playing my own
music, my own way, and how some jazz
great happens to play is no longer of
any interest to me.