<<snip>>
>I think the kind of theory we discuss on this list is exactly what we
>amateurs need. It is applied theory that enables us to be extemporaneous
>arrangers. Reed has also encouraged the practise of writing out solos. I
>am trying that using jazz style blues changes as a framework and
>experimenting with single concepts like hitting guidetones on certain
>beats, using approach notes, arpeggios, etc.
>
If you want to write solos, I would recommend:
1) get some practice first writing ii/V I's or simple turnarounds.
That's why I posted those solo fragments. I.e. to provide an example
of basic writing.
2) For whole tunes, I think that blues is not a great first choice
because there is no strong melody like with a standard. Initially
solos could be written by just embellishing a melody. I'm going
to post my written solo for "Embraceable You" this week but I
don't have time to tonight. That solo stays very close to the melody
for the first sixteen bars and then takes of in other directsions.
However, the "My Foolish Heart" solo I posted does that somewhat too.
3) The main idea is to try and write melodic things. Having a specific
academic agenda as far as approach is not a great idea IMHO. Just try
and find something that sounds good. You might spend alot of time
composing in the beginning. I think I probably spent at least 20 hours
on the first solo I composed . The more you transcribe the easier it
will get (and this will help transcribing too).
3) Don't use guidetones. I know that many will disagree with this
but I think that method of teaching people to improvise borders
on the absolute ridiculous. What I always say is, someone show me
a transcribed solo that indicates that the improviser was thinking about
guidetones or practiced that way. I was thinking about doing this
post today and was trying to explain to one of my teachers, who is
a great player (was Stan Getz's pianist for a while and many others) and
thinker , about the whole notion of guidetones in
improvisation and the idea was so far fetched he had difficulty grasping it.
He couldnt even imagine how something like that could lead anywhere.
4) Here is my basic beef with jazz theory as far as these things go.
To me, alot of music theory is like statistics. In other words if you
took all the solos every played and put them in a blender, you would
find that statistically you are more likely to hear certains notes
against certain chords or certain chord tones on certain beats, etc.
However that knowledge doesnt tell you at all how people created those
solos or learned how to. Knowing what elements make up a beautiful
diamond wont tell you how to make a diamond.
If you want to be a melodic player (I think the highest to strive for
IMHO), you have to be always practicing making melodies, whether it be
compositionally
or while you are playing.
Doing anything else will never lead you to that place.
>This list also stresses transcribing, something I haven't tried yet. I
>think that transcribing would also be a great way to learn
>theory-as-playing. You know the changes of a tune, you listen to a great
>solo until you can practically sing it; then you see what the notes
>really are. All that seems to me to be the right approach.
>
You want to accurately write the solo down, IMHO, and do the
transcription away from your instrument.
Whole solos are really important because alot of things you wont
see if you just do snippets.
reed