First, someone asked to what extent a professional musician actually thinks
consciously about scales and so forth. My guess is, depending on the type
of music they are playing, not a whole lot. Just as I did not think
consciously about including a verb in this sentence. Actually, that
sentence illustrates my point even more than I planned, because it was
probably not a proper sentence because of the words "just as" that may have
turned it into a disembodied clause of some sort. The point being, I had
to learn something about grammar to be able to write intelligently, but
that does not mean I'm always conscious of it any more. And indeed, it is
possible to communicate in a langauge without really learning the grammar -
this is how children generally learn to speak. But on the other hand, they
tend to not be able to produce complex sentences. This could be because
they have only simple thoughts to express, but it is more likely they will
use simple sentences to express even relatively complex thoughts. In
music, there may be complex musical thoughts that will be more difficult to
express with simple phrases, I don't know. This analogy may be running out
of steam. But it hopefully provides food for thought.
My other comment is regarding specific approaches to improvisation. I
should first observe that prior to yesterday, I did not know what a "guide
tone" was, or that some people recommend using them in any manner more
significant that to observe that sevenths produce tension and thirds
produce release. So I have no specific opinion on the matter. Except to
observe that I think it is dangerous (well, that's way too strong a word)
to evaluate a particular method, approach, or style by comparing it to
others to see if that's how they worked. That is, it may well be that none
of the musicians one normally listens to use a particular approach such as
guide tones, or complex scales. This does not invalidate the approach, it
merely indicates the approach is new. For example, one could not explain
what Eric Dolphy did by saying it was just like what someone before him
did; you simply have to accept that he found another way. Similarly, it
may well be that Chet Baker and any number of other musicians play
diatonically, but this does not prove that is the only correct way to play.
Such arguments are circular. If one analyzes the way some given musician
played, and then applies the same rules to one's own playing, you will end
up accurately reproducing the original style, and indeed, depending on your
creativity, you may be able to say interesting and unique things within
that style. But this does not mean that other approaches are wrong; it
only means they are not consistent with the style you happen to be most
familiar with.
I happen to have a number of ideas, methods, and approaches I use. I think
my particular values these put me in the minority among jazz musicians, and
I am sure this means I will never play well in the style of any particular
jazz musician who has not shared my values, but this does not concern me,
so long as I feel I can say something that is interesting for its own sake.
On the other hand, anything I say is going to be heard by audiences who
have heard other musicians, so what I do had better not be completely
foreign to them. So I do still value studying how things have been done in
the past. However, my general rule of thumb is this: there are a finite
number of things one can keep in mind when improvising, and you have to
choose which are most important. I think there are enough really "obvious"
sorts of things to worry about - playing melodically, creating tension and
release, textural variety, and so forth, that I seldom worry about more
subtle theoretical matters. On the other hand, I do know quite a bit of
theory - but I use no more than has been internalized to the same extent
that my knowledge of English grammar has.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
marc@fortnet.org
http://www.fortnet.org/~marc/