Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
Interesting. What you're suggesting, Knotty, I gather is that repeating an idea, be it rhythmic, melodic, etc., is another way of encouraging band members to react because repetition makes its easier to pick up on what the soloist is doing. I like it.
yeah. As accompanist, melodically, we are usually the ones who need to follow. Listen and compliment. Harmonically also, it's out job to hear where things are going, but we can also drive, especially the bass players. Rhythmically, we can exchange, react, or drive with all band members. Establishing some kind of logic in your rhythms, helps people connect. If you comp on one for a good amount of time, you leave a lot of freedom for your drummer. If you start making fancy rhythms, then he's gotta follow you.
... You need to leave space so that other band members can react to what you're doing, and throw you ideas. If you don't leave space, the interraction is much less likely to happen...
Yes, this is a very good thing to consider. There's nothing worse IMHO backing a horn player who has no idea how to interact with the rhythm section. I think the nature of young horn players is to believe somehow that they are the focus and the others in the band are supporting members. So, not only space needs to be considered, but also listening in the those spaces to see where the band may be leading you.
In my recent trio I've been trying to work with getting the bassist and drummer to work more on listening to each other (and to me) in order to have more musical interplay in the songs. One problem I've encountered that is pretty hard to get over is when one or both members don't know the tune enough to keep their eyes off the page or keep their ears open to hear how others are treating the musical ideas.
Recordings of my recent solo piano and piano/keyboard trio jazz standards.
I've been fortunate to have a very experienced rhythm section so my bassist and drummer constantly interact and I interact with them.
I'm not at the point yet where I'm leading the direction. In a way I'm at their mercy rhythmically since they'll change on me from swing to latin to funk. But rhythmically, it's really for them to control and for me to lay out the harmonic foundation. I have to state in advance what I want them to do (like tell them to freely change the feel).
But for interaction to occur, it's probably where the conscious mind has to be fully involved.
At our jam sessions, it's frustrating because many players don't even look up around them. I've now developed the habit of assuming I'm leading so I'm always looking around for clues.
And current research shows that music can convey emotion, and it is amongst the same emotions that are universal: happiness, sadness, fear, surprise, anger . . . Also, there's research into how to convey those emotions visavi performing music.
Hmm, well technically I don't think that is TRANSMITTING emotion, rather as a performer/composer you can create an effect that causes surprise or anger in the listener. The composer isn't 'surprised' as the technique for causing surprise in the listener is thought out.
Sure a performer feels emotion (or can 'act' emotion well) and the listener has an emotional reaction but I don't think that science has shown that the emotion is present in the music itself. Emotion is something that exists only in the human brain. Also the listeners reaction may have nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the piece itself. Every time I hear 'i should be so lucky' by Kylie I have pain, but that is not in the tune itself, rather it is a reaction caused by my (individual) response to that dreadful music. I don't mean to go off on a philosophical tangent it's just that I am reading some rather interesting stuff on semiotics and postmodernism at the moment so it is near the surface of my thoughts.
+1
Plenty of threads in the pianist corner where they are SO EMOTIONAL and they need the EMOTIONAL MATURITY to play.
I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking as you do.
If anything, it's us jazz players that have more stake in the emotion because we're the ones creating new music, not just regurgitating someone else's. Yet we come out as cold SOB's because we don't need emotion to play. Just PRACTICE
Wow, I step out into the woods of West Sweden (no Internet, no cell phone towers, just 45 cows, 3 goats and a whole bunch of trees) for some vacation time and you guys are deep in discussion mode.
I'm also +1 on letting the subconscious rule, or rather letting it 'go'. But without muscular support, finger-brain co-ordination, emotional response - practise practise practise it would have nothing to work with.
Check out these two vids, its from research at John Hopkins. "It appears, they conclude, that jazz musicians create their unique improvised riffs by turning off inhibition and turning up creativity."
"The scientists found that a region of the brain known as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, a broad portion of the front of the brain that extends to the sides, showed a slowdown in activity during improvisation. This area has been linked to planned actions and self-censoring, such as carefully deciding what words you might say at a job interview. Shutting down this area could lead to lowered inhibitions, Limb suggests.
The researchers also saw increased activity in the medial prefrontal cortex, which sits in the center of the brain’s frontal lobe. This area has been linked with self-expression and activities that convey individuality, such as telling a story about yourself." Text version from John Hopkins web site
Very interesting Chris! So is this equivalent to saying the subconscious takes over? If so, how does it create? Is it random mixing of what we already know?
When we listen to/create melodies, it seems so consciously constructed that the conscious mind has to be involved. Perhaps just the inhibitory responses removed.
Here's something I think might be somewhat in line with the conscious/subconscious issue... at least some parts. Even if not it seems interesting. It was recommended to me by another forum member:
Very interesting Chris! So is this equivalent to saying the subconscious takes over? If so, how does it create? Is it random mixing of what we already know?
When we listen to/create melodies, it seems so consciously constructed that the conscious mind has to be involved. Perhaps just the inhibitory responses removed.
Sure the conscious mind is involved, but the subconscious mind is also involved. I expect dozens of brain areas are involved.
It would be interesting to see the scientist explain internal hearing. I've heard many many conflicting reports of how this works. Many seem to regard the state where you prehear every phrase as desireable? Then how is that improvising? I assume you'd only be able to play phrases you practiced intensivly and play them verbatim. How does that fit in with split second descions during interplay? And what you previously played has to be taken into consideration. This is what I regard as prehearing: that you know what will come next based on what you already played. But I certainly don't hear every phrase before I play it. And I dont think I want to.
Is that guy in the vid even improvising? Sounds like some unfocused noodling on the blues scale...
How do we know every persons brain behaves the same way during improvisation?
I guess what we're all looking for is some insight in how this might change our practice strategy.
I think there are definitely some things that are mostly offloaded to the subconscious -- rhythm (except when changing it), voicings, form, technique.
At least from the perspective of a newer player, I realize that the more I've offloaded to the subconscious, the more time I seem to have to pay attention to other things like listening. And this seems to grow.
Although the video doesn't explain anything, it just shows that different brain development may be required for better improvising. Maybe that's why it comes easier to some than others.
It would be interesting to see the scientist explain internal hearing. I've heard many many conflicting reports of how this works. Many seem to regard the state where you prehear every phrase as desireable? Then how is that improvising? I assume you'd only be able to play phrases you practiced intensivly and play them verbatim. How does that fit in with split second descions during interplay? And what you previously played has to be taken into consideration. This is what I regard as prehearing: that you know what will come next based on what you already played. But I certainly don't hear every phrase before I play it. And I dont think I want to.
Is that guy in the vid even improvising? Sounds like some unfocused noodling on the blues scale...
How do we know every persons brain behaves the same way during improvisation?
LOL -- yes the guy is on the very basic level of improvising.
BTW - if you sing what you play, is that prehearing? At a millisecond level, the fingers must respond in the same way.
It would be interesting to see the scientist explain internal hearing. I've heard many many conflicting reports of how this works. Many seem to regard the state where you prehear every phrase as desireable? Then how is that improvising? I assume you'd only be able to play phrases you practiced intensivly and play them verbatim. How does that fit in with split second descions during interplay? And what you previously played has to be taken into consideration. This is what I regard as prehearing: that you know what will come next based on what you already played. But I certainly don't hear every phrase before I play it. And I dont think I want to.
I don't have any real answers here but I think that it is similar to speech in that we can (I can) hear words in my head and to some degree rehearse what I want to say in advance of saying it. When actually having a conversation there isn't time to rehearse every twist and turn but I may still have an idea of what I am going to say beforehand. Even when I am just rambling on (like now) these words must somehow exist in my brain before they exist on paper as my brain is controlling my fingers doing the typing. I think it is pretty well established that when we imagine doing things the little lights inside out brains (ie the blood flow) come on in the same way as if we were actually to do those things. Scientists have shown this by scanning coma patients who are imagining playing tennis. When schizophrenics are hallucinating and hearing voices their brains are stimulated in the same way as if they were really hearing voices.
Although the video doesn't explain anything, it just shows that different brain development may be required for better improvising. Maybe that's why it comes easier to some than others.
Oliver Sacks in his book 'musicophilia' (a fascinating read) suggests that due to the plasticity of the brain musicians actually change the structure of their brain through learning music. Those modules heavily involved can actually grow physically, just as London taxi drivers have an enlarged 'knowing where you are' module. But I think that being good at music involves very many different skills. I guess the Jarretts of this world are not only built with all the best modules but also have the chance and circumstance to build those modules at the best time.
I've read that book by Sacks. My mother bought it and she's convinced my interest in music was sparked by concussions and haemorrhage I had as a kid. Truly fascinating book. I wonder how the memory the people that were experiencing aural hallucinations differs from the more conscious memory. Those people were reliving every detail of some silly song they've heard 60 years ago. I've had simular experiences just as I'm about to fall asleep and where I can even control it. I think it's pretty common. Everything is gone once your awake of course. It's like all the music you've ever heard is stored somewhere where we can't access it.
One interesting observation from that scientist is that playing classical music uses a different part of the brain than jazz. So I would assume that the classical music part is focused more on the memorization aspect.
But theoretically, if we improvise and pull out a collection of shapes/licks/patterns that it is also being pulled from memory.
So since the brain waves are different, then it must mean we need to develop a skill beyond memorization to a much larger degree.
I'm back to thinking that memorizing licks isn't as important. Certainly when I improvise, I am not aware of any attempt in my brain to recall a particular lick. Instead I percieve that I'm assembling smaller elements. I also perceive when I play that I react to what I did last. And adding space gives me more opportunity to react (another possible advantage to space).
One interesting observation from that scientist is that playing classical music uses a different part of the brain than jazz. So I would assume that the classical music part is focused more on the memorization aspect.
But theoretically, if we improvise and pull out a collection of shapes/licks/patterns that it is also being pulled from memory.
So since the brain waves are different, then it must mean we need to develop a skill beyond memorization to a much larger degree.
I don't think I would want to draw those conclusions from the research. Memory is a big topic and really badly understood. We don't even know where in the brain memories are stored or even what physical form they are stored in. It would be impossible to even perceive a single melody without memory so it is quite apparent that memory plays a vital role not just in the playing of music but on every level of perception. If you have the ability to improvise then that itself must be stored in the brain as memory. Unfortunately I think that it has been shown that 'working memory' is a crucial aspect of many skills, and that appears to be something that it is very difficult to improve. Then again I am no brain scientist so you can take my observations of badly remembered articles I have read with a pinch of salt.
It seems to me that any skill that we can develop has to be based in memory of some form, how else could it exist in the brain? So I don't think there can be any other skill beyond memorization.
Beeboss, though we may not understand in detail, we can at least distinguish (from that experiment) that a different brain process occurs in improvisation and it is different from what one does with classical playing.
So think about what you do with classical playing. You are constantly repeating the same thing over and over.
In jazz, it's probably less about the perfection of the motions but more of the process (intervals, relationships). When I improvise, I listen to it differently than when I play Chopin. I react to what I last did.
Remember that exercise I mentioned sometime back where I play a motif and then force the next phrase to be connected to it? Brad Mehldau talks about doing this. So maybe that's the skill to be developed more. It's some combination of listening + creating.
It also forces the conscious mind to be involved and prevents repetitivenes in the solo (muscle memory based movements).
I'm just making this guess because if the scientist found a difference in the brain waves, then there may be a way to apply this observation to actual analysis of what we practice.
So think about what you do with classical playing. You are constantly repeating the same thing over and over.
I am just not sure the study has anything to do with memory. It states … "Since the brain areas activated during memorized playing are parts that tend to be active during any kind of piano playing, the researchers subtracted those images from ones taken during improvisation."
The scientists found that a region of the brain known as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, a broad portion of the front of the brain that extends to the sides, showed a slowdown in activity during improvisation. This area has been linked to planned actions and self-censoring, such as carefully deciding what words you might say at a job interview. The researchers also saw increased activity in the medial prefrontal cortex, which sits in the center of the brain’s frontal lobe. This area has been linked with self-expression and activities that convey individuality, such as telling a story about yourself. http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news..._use_mri_to_study_spontaneity_creativity
Originally Posted by jazzwee
I'm just making this guess because if the scientist found a difference in the brain waves, then there may be a way to apply this observation to actual analysis of what we practice.
We may well play more creatively if we shutdown the "dorsolateral prefrontal cortex" and increase the activity in the "medial prefrontal cortex", but how on earth can we begin to do that? Maybe we should practice in the MRI scanner.
