I realized that you can't really play good without imitation.

[rich2k4]

at least in my case. I'm really lazy when it comes to transcribing. especially when it comes to a blues tune with pentatonic licks. I always listen to it and say "all the person is doing is pentatonic stuff, i can do that, that's easy"

The problem, is that when I play, it never sounds as great and doesn't flow as well as the person in the tune, whether it is SRV, or Matt Scofield, etc

This just made me realize that it's best to transcribe all of their licks, and then branch out from there with your own stuff. Trying to do everything from scratch, and making up your own licks with no references just does not work for me.

I hope that's easy to understand, i don't even know if this thread has a point to it, haha

[robelinda2]

I agree 100%! Just because i transcribe a Jeff Beck tune doesnt mean i'm going to sound like him.

[Swain]

Well, I bet every player you mentioned did the exact same thing. I think you're exactly right.
Sure, there are those truly original artists. Right out of the gate. But, I think 99% of people need to learn from what has become before.

[russ6100]

You'll get out of it what you put into it.
:AOK

[Ooogie]

I agree completely. A lot of it might just be pentatonic stuff but you really need to transcribe it to pick up their phrasing and see how they use voice leading, turnarounds and those other nuances that take it beyond wankery...

Mark

[JonR]

Agreed. It might sound like a contradiction, but you have to copy in order to become original.
You copy great players to pick up their phrasing ideas (not the scales they use, which are the same as what everyone uses).
Then you remember and keep the particular ideas you like, that stand out for you.
The more players you copy, the more you build a personal database of favourite licks that will be different from anyone else's database - because no one will copy quite the same mix of players or the same favourite licks as you will.
That - translated through the inevitable accidental playing quirks of your own technique - then becomes your "original" sound.

[GuitarsFromMars]

Um,let's start with imitation being the sincerest form of flattery.

[mikefair]

Been playing a lot - bands, recordings, sessions, jamming - for the past 15 years and still trying to figure out how the greats connect soloing ideas. I have a friend that says, if you borrow from one source, it's plagarism; if you borrow from 2 or more, it's research.

[jzucker]

this is pretty much what I was saying when I got flamed last month. I guess it's all in the delivery. ;)

[JonR]

I have a friend that says, if you borrow from one source, it's plagarism; if you borrow from 2 or more, it's research.Precisely - exactly what I was saying above (but in a neater aphoristic phrase).

[JonR]

this is pretty much what I was saying when I got flamed last month. Right. Great minds think alike. Because they rip each other off (or they're just stating the bleeding obvious) :) .
Our opinions are great, because we're recycling the great opinions of others before us...
;)

Great ideas get flamed to begin with, because they're misunderstood, or ahead of their time. But then people think about them a bit..... and then realise, "hmm, actually that's right! I think I'll have that idea myself now..." :rolleyes:

[Daniel-San]

Yep...I guess everybody needs to copy stuff of their "heroes". You'll hear that the "hero" did the same thing....etc...

I guess it's necessary to first take licks, phrases or certain not so obvious notes in a song from others to find your own style. I still play along to loads of cd's and pick up a lot of licks from that...especially from live recordings.

[Jon]

Even the greatest orators in history learned to speak by copying other people - this imitation is how humans learn, whether adults or children. The stuff that you learn from other people is the foundation on which you build your own style. I can't imagine anyone being able to improvise at a high level without going through this process of learning other people's music and licks. It's what you do with it once you've learned it that makes the difference - you can't reject clichés unless you have a pretty good understanding of what they are to begin with.

[supahsekzy]

plus, as time goes on it becomes that much harder to truly do something that hasn't already been done before...

[KRosser]

There's a lot of invaluable stuff you can learn from imitation, definitely.

But - some people will learn those things and some people will just imitate. It has everything to do with the driver and little to do with the road taken.

Jim Hall told me he never did it. I believe him. Dave Liebman told me he did it a lot. I believe him too. They're both two of the most original voices around.

[jzucker]

Hey Ken, Jim Hall told me he *DID* copy. He copied quite a bit of Charlie Christian and Charlie Parker. He even plays quotes Bird solos on a few albums like on the bridge to scrapple from the apple on the trio CD. It's pretty evident on his early CDs that he loved Christian.

[KRosser]

Hey Ken, Jim Hall told me he *DID* copy. He copied quite a bit of Charlie Christian and Charlie Parker. He even plays quotes Bird solos on a few albums like on the bridge to scrapple from the apple on the trio CD. It's pretty evident on his early CDs that he loved Christian.

Jim told me he learned a Christian solo but never tried to copy him. Maybe we're splitting hairs here. I'll take that back then.

Anyway Jack - the point I'm really trying to make. "Imitation" is a good road to take to get there. But a good road is not enough. It takes a focused and committed driver. And focused and committed drivers have a way of arriving at a destination no matter how many times they swerve off the road. Drivers that aren't committed and focused have a way of stalling out and getting distracted and never getting there at all even though they took the best road out there.

Too many people argue about the method instead of questioning their own commitment. Without looking at that, all the "cans and can'ts" in the world aren't worth much - that's really the bottom line of what I was getting at.

I shoulda left poor Jim Hall out of it.

[jzucker]

I agree with your point but improvising without imitating first is a lot like not knowing how to drive and just pulling out onto the highway. There's no way to know if you're going to crash and burn or not. If you're a genius like Bill Evans, maybe you can get away with not copying solos. By and large, I would guess that well over 90% of the great jazz musicians imitated. Same is true of the great rock, blues and fusion players. To me, it's irresponsible to tell a young player that they needn't copy solos and should simply learn theory instead.

Another point - I take a lot of what guys like Martino and Hall and Kessel say (said) with a grain of salt. There are many motivations for them saying what they say.

Martino once told me that he never played licks - That every note he plays is born in the instant. Well, all you have to do is copy one or two of his solos to see that he has about 5-10 core licks that he recycles over and over again. However, years after he learned to play (through transcribing Wes, Johnnny Smith, Grant Green, and going on the road 100-200 days a year with organ trios) he formulates the 12 pointed star and geometric shapes and teaches *THAT* to young students. IMO, He ought to be teaching them about how *HE* learned.

The bottom line is in the lines they play. Regardless of what Martino, Kessel or Hall say, their music speaks the real truth. You can hear their influences in the music.


Jim told me he learned a Christian solo but never tried to copy him. Maybe we're splitting hairs here. I'll take that back then.

Anyway Jack - the point I'm really trying to make. "Imitation" is a good road to take to get there. But a good road is not enough. It takes a focused and committed driver. And focused and committed drivers have a way of arriving at a destination no matter how many times they swerve off the road.

Too many people argue about the method instead of questioning their own commitment. Without looking at that, all the "cans and can'ts" in the world aren't worth much - that's really the bottom line of what I was getting at.

I shoulda left poor Jim Hall out of it.

[ivers]

Martino once told me that he never played licks - That every note he plays is born in the instant.

Hahaha... I love Martino (and struggle like hell to keep his licks out of my own playing, as they wanna creep in there), but that was funny.

[jzucker]

Hahaha... I love Martino (and struggle like hell to keep his licks out of my own playing, as they wanna creep in there), but that was funny.

The funniest one was when I had transcribed this weird octave displaced chromatic scale from a Willis Jackson album he had played on. I played it for him and asked how he came up with me. He looked me dead in the eye and said it just came to him and was born in "that" instant. A couple weeks later at a lesson, he left the room and I peeked up on his desk where he was writing out some music (on rice paper no less) and there was a document entitled "Twelve Chromatic Forms for Guitar". The lick I had transcribed was the first one.

I love martino but I wish he didn't try to make simple things more difficult.

[KRosser]

I agree with your point but improvising without imitating first is a lot like not knowing how to drive and just pulling out onto the highway. There's no way to know if you're going to crash and burn or not.

That's Liebman's clinic spiel, almost to a word. He's an excellent clinician, as you know.


By and large, I would guess that well over 90% of the great jazz musicians imitated. Same is true of the great rock, blues and fusion players.

Sure. I question some of the great blues players - Hubert Sumlin, Clarence Gatemouth Brown and Albert King always said they didn't copy a note from anyone and listening to them I can almost kinda believe it. Especially Sumlin.

To me, it's irresponsible to tell a young player that they needn't copy solos and should simply learn theory instead.

To be fair Jack - that's not what I said at all. Not even close.

Another point - I take a lot of what guys like Martino and Hall and Kessel say (said) with a grain of salt.

I take what they say with the whole spice rack - like I said, I shoulda left Hall out of it. It wasn't essential to my point at all.

The bottom line is in the lines they play. Regardless of what Martino, Kessel or Hall say, their music speaks the real truth. You can hear their influences in the music.

Not to put too fine a point on it - but to me 'influence', 'transcribing' and 'imitation' are three completely different things and immersing oneself in one doesn't imply an immersion in the others to me.

I know what you're saying and in spirit we're in complete agreement and always have been.

My only objection with the OP, and maybe this is what I did a poor job of explaining: when I see a statement like "you can't play really good without imitation" it leaves out the fact that many will imitate and not get good, and the reason for this is not the fault of the method. It's because they can't or won't find the focus to learn something from it they can apply on their own or even understand that's what the focus might be on. With the right kind of focus, a little imitation goes a long way; without it all the imitation in the world doesn't seem to get you very far. i see hundreds of guitar students every year, interested in all kinds of styles, and more of them imitate than not.

It's not enough to imitate - what do you do after that? With it? That's the critical step I felt wasn't being discussed. Everyone knows you can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs open. But knowing how to crack eggs open isn't enough.

I also didn't understand the OP to be jazz-improv specific - good classical musicians learn to play without necessarily imitating anyone all the time - but maybe that doesn't matter. "Imitation" is a cornerstone of just about every folk tradition from any part of the planet and I'd include most American popular music (especially jazz) under that umbrella.

[jzucker]

Hey Ken,

I think we agree in general. I didn't mean it like I was yelling at you or telling you you were wrong. I think we're just splitting hairs in the way we're expressing similar ideas. I was railing more against certain other prevailing attitudes I occasionally see/read about on forums or hear students discuss.

[Shiny McShine]

Regarding the original post:

I know that if I keep trying, I can find a note in my guitar that satisfies me. I think that's the real secret of it.

[seiko]

Hubert Sumlin, Clarence Gatemouth Brown and Albert King always said they didn't copy a note from anyone and listening to them I can almost kinda believe it. Especially Sumlin.

I can certainly believe Sumlin, who sounded like that before him? Ike Turner too, of course, he had the advantage of being able to base his sound on the new technology of a strat.

The process of transcription, osmosis and influence is a pretty board and interesting area. Imitation can certainly be a double-edged sword I feel if you're too in the thrall of one or two sounds then you might learn to play but do you really bring anything new to table (probably easier for others to judge).

For instance, I've seen plenty of interviews where Tom Verlaine is asked where he got his sound from. He says that he never copied any of the big guitar players at the time, in fact would struggle to play a Chuck Berry song in the "right" way. He has, however, always said that he listened to Alyer and Coltrane fairly religiously for a couple of years, so you have to think that rubbed off, but its more a case of osmosis and influence than direct transcription.

But I think that just makes a case for keeping an open ear and not limiting yourself to specific instrumental, genre or even musical influences (Captain Beefheart taping his car windscreen wipers for a drumbeat for instance).

[KRosser]

I can certainly believe Sumlin, who sounded like that before him?

Before or since? I love his playing...

Ike Turner too, of course, he had the advantage of being able to base his sound on the new technology of a strat.

A radically new technology certainly throws a monkey wrench into questions of precedent and influence, for sure. Ditto: the synthesizer, etc.

The process of transcription, osmosis and influence is a pretty board and interesting area.

One can be influenced by something without imitating it; one can imitate something without it exercising a noticeable influence

Yeah, interesting.

[seiko]

Before or since? I love his playing...

Before, I certainly hear his influence on a bunch of players but would struggle to pick out his influences.

[jzucker]

By the way, anyone who believes the old blues guys didn't cop other folks licks needs to be buyin' some bridges. That's just ego talkin'. Those guys were extremely competitive to the point of refusing to play in front of their colleagues or in some cases putting a napkin over their hands. Again, listen to the music, not the words. Folks will say anything sometimes. ;)

[supahsekzy]

I agree, music is a combination of imitation and injecting your own style and ideas in. Imitation is necessary but not sufficient. what you do with it is what counts.

Remember if one sees far it's because he stands on the shoulders of giants.

p.s. bill evans was boss.

[seiko]

By the way, anyone who believes the old blues guys didn't cop other folks licks needs to be buyin' some bridges. That's just ego talkin'. Those guys were extremely competitive to the point of refusing to play in front of their colleagues or in some cases putting a napkin over their hands. Again, listen to the music, not the words. Folks will say anything sometimes. ;)


Most of them, yes, in the case of Hubert Sumlin its harder to pinpoint, for me at least. I hear some BB King for sure, a Charlie Patton nod in the Smokestack Lighting riff, and I think Sumlin was thinking about horn parts for some of the chord voicings but I don't hear many obvious influences in the Chess singles that made his name. I mean they started coming out before Otis Rush and Magic Sam, so I assume he influenced *them*.

[Ken Ho]

The funniest one was when I had transcribed this weird octave displaced chromatic scale from a Willis Jackson album he had played on. I played it for him and asked how he came up with me. He looked me dead in the eye and said it just came to him and was born in "that" instant. A couple weeks later at a lesson, he left the room and I peeked up on his desk where he was writing out some music (on rice paper no less) and there was a document entitled "Twelve Chromatic Forms for Guitar". The lick I had transcribed was the first one.

I love martino but I wish he didn't try to make simple things more difficult.

See, that's the kind of egotistical crap that really riles me.
A truly great man or teacher would not pull stunts like that.

[jzucker]

See, that's the kind of egotistical crap that really riles me.
A truly great man or teacher would not pull stunts like that.

There's some type jealousy that's unfortunately all to common to great players. Folks are insecure and attempt to make what they do sound more complicated and intricate than it really is. I remember Howard Roberts telling me that Barney Kessel used to put a napkin over his hands when Howard would walk into a club. He didn't want Howie stealing his voicings.

It's one reason I admire Rodney Jones who is not only a world class player but doesn't play games. He is a great player and great teacher. Tells it like it is and doesn't try to make what he's doing sound magical or mystical.

[Ken Ho]

There's some type jealousy that's unfortunately all to common to great players. Folks are insecure and attempt to make what they do sound more complicated and intricate than it really is. I remember Howard Roberts telling me that Barney Kessel used to put a napkin over his hands when Howard would walk into a club. He didn't want Howie stealing his voicings.

It's one reason I admire Rodney Jones who is not only a world class player but doesn't play games. He is a great player and great teacher. Tells it like it is and doesn't try to make what he's doing sound magical or mystical.

Yes, in my profession of medicine, you run across a lot big egos and grand-standing, some of which can be quite viscious and detrimental, which is why I have a low tolerance.
My best teachers were the ones who had risen above that.
People who inflate their own importance by making a big deal out of stuff do not impress me.
I had a great kuing-fu teacher some years ago who de-mystified a lot of stuff for me too as he did not need to buff his ego by playing magical grand master.

[arthur rotfeld]

at least in my case. I'm really lazy when it comes to transcribing. especially when it comes to a blues tune with pentatonic licks. I always listen to it and say "all the person is doing is pentatonic stuff, i can do that, that's easy"

The problem, is that when I play, it never sounds as great and doesn't flow as well as the person in the tune, whether it is SRV, or Matt Scofield, etc

This just made me realize that it's best to transcribe all of their licks, and then branch out from there with your own stuff. Trying to do everything from scratch, and making up your own licks with no references just does not work for me.

I hope that's easy to understand, i don't even know if this thread has a point to it, haha

It does have point. I used to scan transcriptions as a kid and "analyze" at a glance, just to see what scales were employed. It's a small piece of the puzzle as you've noted. It's great to come up with your own ideas, but also great learn how others do and how to expand on those ideas.

I do much more transcribing in recent years and have gone back to learning the details in the work of the masters, especially with my students.

[arthur rotfeld]

There's some type jealousy that's unfortunately all to common to great players. Folks are insecure and attempt to make what they do sound more complicated and intricate than it really is.

It's true. I remember in college reading analysis of Stravinsky. Again, not that complicated, but the author/theorists truly presented things in the most complicated way imaginable. It was BS, just to make their work look impressive alonside the math and physics faculty. I digress.......

I appreciate guitarists and musicians who present their techniques without pretense. They are artists who don't operate on a competitive plane, but on a creative one and can thus can share without concern.

[fr8_trane]

at least in my case. I'm really lazy when it comes to transcribing. especially when it comes to a blues tune with pentatonic licks. I always listen to it and say "all the person is doing is pentatonic stuff, i can do that, that's easy"

The problem, is that when I play, it never sounds as great and doesn't flow as well as the person in the tune, whether it is SRV, or Matt Scofield, etc

This just made me realize that it's best to transcribe all of their licks, and then branch out from there with your own stuff. Trying to do everything from scratch, and making up your own licks with no references just does not work for me.

I hope that's easy to understand, i don't even know if this thread has a point to it, haha

Yeah I've fallen into that trap as well. But then you have to ask yourself ... well if Great Player A and Great Player B both use the pentatonic scale exclusively what sets them apart. The answer is phrasing and you can't learn phrasing from a book. The only way you can learn that is by transcribing. Licks dont count either - those are merely the vocabulary and you need to understand how to string the licks together into coherent sentences and even extended paragraphs.

Also the whole "I don't mimic anyone" thing is totally misguided. All the greats stood on the shoulders of the players who came before. Music is a journey and the great players define the terrain. You wanna push the edge or blaze a new trail, fine. But your not going to get their with a blindfold on.

The key is to copy from lots of different players and also to force yourself to transcribe NON guitar players. Piano and horn players are especially useful.

If you copy one player exclusively you'll be a hack.

If you steal from many eventually your own style will emerge.

I'm working on all this stuff myself (and will be forever - its a process) but I think this advice will work for anyone on any instrument in any style.

[GovernorSilver]

They are artists who don't operate on a competitive plane, but on a creative one and can thus can share without concern.

Fits David Torn ("splatt") to a tee.

[seiko]

Also the whole "I don't mimic anyone" thing is totally misguided.

Derek Bailey conciously went out of his way to ensure that was the case and helped to create a new set of vocabularly for guitar, I wouldn't call that "totally misguided." I'm not saying that everyone should that and, of course, everything has roots and antecedents but a radical break with tradition is a good think sometimes.

[Gene]

I personally think having a great musical role model in your early years is very helpful. How one goes on from there is really an individualistic path.

I think there is truth that the ones that have real music inside them do become wonderful contributing members to the world of music whether they like it or not.

[jzucker]

Derek Bailey conciously went out of his way to ensure that was the case and helped to create a new set of vocabularly for guitar, I wouldn't call that "totally misguided." I'm not saying that everyone should that and, of course, everything has roots and antecedents but a radical break with tradition is a good think sometimes.

But Derek Bailey's vocabulary is uniquely his and hasn't been folded back into the widely accepted norm for the genre. That is the true litmus test IMO. Anyone can be unique but to be unique and then universally followed by the genre for generations to come is the key.

IMO, the folks with the biggest influence in jazz have been influenced by the people who have come before them. Coltrane, Miles, Abercrombie, Wes, Charlie Christian, Satch, etc.

[seiko]

But Derek Bailey's vocabulary is uniquely his and hasn't been folded back into the widely accepted norm for the genre. That is the true litmus test IMO. Anyone can be unique but to be unique and then universally followed by the genre for generations to come is the key.

Maybe not into mainstream jazz (although he did record with Pat Metheny) but his work has informed a lot of No Wave/John Zorn/Ribot axis for years as well being cited by people like Nels Cline and Glenn Kotche of Wilco. I'm not sure that Zorn is any less "mainstream" than say, Ben Monder, (to pluck a modern jazz guitar player out of the hat) these days.

Anyhow, this is a tangent.

[KRosser]

Derek Bailey conciously went out of his way to ensure that was the case and helped to create a new set of vocabularly for guitar, I wouldn't call that "totally misguided." I'm not saying that everyone should that and, of course, everything has roots and antecedents but a radical break with tradition is a good think sometimes.

I think it's worth noting Bailey started as a mainstream standards-based jazz guitarist in the Jim Hall sorta vein and his progression toward his later vocabulary was gradual. The radical break came when he stopped playing standards - not when he created new vocabulary. As the vocabulary evolved, the standards trio format made less and less sense.

But Derek Bailey's vocabulary is uniquely his and hasn't been folded back into the widely accepted norm for the genre. That is the true litmus test IMO. Anyone can be unique but to be unique and then universally followed by the genre for generations to come is the key.


Derek's vocabulary has been folding back into the widely accepted norm for the genre of free improv and extended guitar techniques, in a very easily tangible way; it just wasn't jazz.

Nels Cline, Fred Frith, Rod Poole, Hans Reichel, Keith Rowe, Henry Kaiser, Marc Ribot, Bill Frisell, Marco Capelli, Noel Akchote, and numbers of others have deliberately quoted from this vocabulary and cited his influence.

[Tag]

at least in my case. I'm really lazy when it comes to transcribing. especially when it comes to a blues tune with pentatonic licks. I always listen to it and say "all the person is doing is pentatonic stuff, i can do that, that's easy"

The problem, is that when I play, it never sounds as great and doesn't flow as well as the person in the tune, whether it is SRV, or Matt Scofield, etc

This just made me realize that it's best to transcribe all of their licks, and then branch out from there with your own stuff. Trying to do everything from scratch, and making up your own licks with no references just does not work for me.

I hope that's easy to understand, i don't even know if this thread has a point to it, haha
Agree!

[Tag]

Anyone can be unique but to be unique and then universally followed by the genre for generations to come is the key.




Agree. Being different has nothing to do with being good.

[slyzspyz]

In another art-form/discipline: Picasso and Dali - pretty original, right? Noted for being child prodigies, learnt formally, copying etc before making their impact with their own original 'voices'

[Ken Ho]

In another art-form/discipline: Picasso and Dali - pretty original, right? Noted for being child prodigies, learnt formally, copying etc before making their impact with their own original 'voices'


Yes, very true, and all the old masters had extensive formal training.

[aram]

nah, i never believed the hype that you have to imitate to sound good.

that's just an excuse for those who are afraid to go out on a limb and do their own thing, or who don't have anything unique to say.

that being said, you should certainly learn and know about artists.

i feel that my whole life is dedicated to learning about and checking out new music.

one of the best things i ever did was transcribing an entire charlie parker solo entirely by ear- no guitar or piano to help.

i then wrote it down, learned how to play it and studied his phrasing.

but did i try and imitate him? no way. especially when performing.

I've always felt so strongly averse to that.

When I was a kid, I was obsessed with Jane's Addiction and the Cure.

I learned all their songs, but I would always make up my own solos during the solo parts. There were things I may have tried to "figure out", but I always thought it was more fun making up my own stuff.

And what's so exciting about going to a show and hearing someone copying someone else?

i remember i was at this club in nyc, hearing a sax player playing "love for sale," and he was playing all these licks from the dexter version.

BORING!!!

I'd rather go listen to Dexter.

Look, I'm not knocking imitation.

If that's what you want to do, then that's fine.

But there's nothing great in copying someone else's music.

I'd rather listen to crappy music that is original, new, and coming from the writer's own perspective and experience, than some dude copying someone else.

:phones

[jzucker]

nah, i never believed the hype that you have to imitate to sound good.

that's just an excuse for those who are afraid to go out on a limb and do their own thing, or who don't have anything unique to say.


Sorry, I call BS. Metheny, Clapton, Coltrane, Herbie, McCoy, Wes, Benson, Martino, SRV, Eric Johnson, Jimi, etc., all copied and imitated.

They didn't have anything unique to say? Sorry.

[aram]

Sorry, I call BS. Metheny, Clapton, Coltrane, Herbie, McCoy, Wes, Benson, Martino, SRV, Eric Johnson, Jimi, etc., all copied and imitated.

They didn't have anything unique to say? Sorry.

it's not bs jack!!!!
(:

okay i concede, each of these artist probably went through a period of imitation early on, but what's important is to ask at what point they decided, "It's now time to start doing my own thing."

all the artists above, some at a very early age, already had their own thing going on.

and i think that's because they decided early on to honor their own sound ideas and techniques above copying other peoples.

does that make sense?

in other words, they had enough honor a respect for other players to study them and listen and perhaps even imitate them for a bit, but they had a strong enough sense of self to realize that their own personal voice was every bit as important as the ones that they studied.

[jzucker]

it's not bs jack!!!!
(:

okay i concede, each of these artist probably went through a period of imitation early on, but what's important is to ask at what point they decided, "It's now time to start doing my own thing."

all the artists above, some at a very early age, already had their own thing going on.

and i think that's because they decided early on to honor their own sound ideas and techniques above copying other peoples.

does that make sense?

in other words, they had enough honor a respect for other players to study them and listen and perhaps even imitate them for a bit, but they had a strong enough sense of self to realize that their own personal voice was every bit as important as the ones that they studied.

Metheny, Benson, Martino were all Wes Clones in their late teens, early 20s. You've obfuscated a bit of misinformation which IMO is extremely harmful and misleading to young players. Those guys all developed their own thing *AFTER* their formative years and by going out on the road and fulfilling and distilling the information they had gleaned from their heros and by gigging constantly. None of them sat down one day (or even had time to...) and decided to be original. Being original isn't like deciding to get a makeover. It just happened out of the commitment they had to the music and their work ethic (not to mention talent). By the time they sat back and realized they had an original style, it was too late. They already were original.

So for the young improviser or student, COPY/COPY/COPY.

[aram]

Metheny, Benson, Martino were all Wes Clones in their late teens, early 20s. You've obfuscated a bit of misinformation which IMO is extremely harmful and misleading to young players. Those guys all developed their own thing *AFTER* their formative years and by going out on the road and fulfilling and distilling the information they had gleaned from their heros and by gigging constantly. None of them sat down one day (or even had time to...) and decided to be original. Being original isn't like deciding to get a makeover. It just happened out of the commitment they had to the music and their work ethic (not to mention talent). By the time they sat back and realized they had an original style, it was too late. They already were original.

So for the young improviser or student, COPY/COPY/COPY.

i couldn't disagree more jack.

i actually think telling someone to copy/copy/copy is one of the worst things you can tell a young player.

how are they supposed to develop a creative mind and way of thinking if they're turned into robots?

press this button and you have wes, press this button and you have grant green, etc, etc..

i think you're misinterpreting some of what i'm saying (sorry, expressing my thoughts in words hasn't always been a talent).

i don't think there's anything wrong with transcribing and studying other players. you should do that, and do it often.

but with my students, for every lick they learn by someone else, they should write 3 of their own.

[Ooogie]

one of the best things i ever did was transcribing an entire charlie parker solo entirely by ear- no guitar or piano to help.

i then wrote it down, learned how to play it and studied his phrasing.



This is what the OP was referring to when he said "imitate" (at least that's how I took it). He was stating that he realized just saying it's pentatonics and moving on wasn't cutting it and he had to transcribe and study the solos to really learn anything and improve. Maybe it's just a matter of different definitions of the word imitate...

Mark

[russ6100]

Ooogie wrote:
Maybe it's just a matter of different definitions of the word imitate...

I think that's what's going on here - largely semantic....

There's no reason why these concepts have to be mutually exclusive - one can transcribe and check out the material from others while simultaneously coming up with sounds of your own, and encouraging this early on is fine - one doesn't take anything away from the other.

[JohnM]

I heard a good bit of advice the other day (regarding photography, but I think it somehow applies here...)

Question - "How do I make more interesting photos??"

Answer - "Become a more interesting person."

:AOK

[GovernorSilver]

one of the best things i ever did was transcribing an entire charlie parker solo entirely by ear- no guitar or piano to help.

i then wrote it down, learned how to play it and studied his phrasing.

but did i try and imitate him? no way.

If you could elaborate on the above, perhaps that would eliminate the confusion.

Specifically, explain how learning how to play the Charlie Parker solo and studying his phrasing is not imitating.

[jzucker]

i couldn't disagree more jack.

Same here. Obviously we share virtually nothing when it comes to tutelage. Probably best to agree to disagree and move on because you and I are about as far apart fire and ice on this issue.

[russ6100]

GovernorSilver wrote:
Specifically, explain how learning how to play the Charlie Parker solo and studying his phrasing is not imitating.I'm not him but to me, it's the difference in learning something to check out and gain some insight, not learning it to regurgitate note-for-note in one of your solos on the bandstand or on a recording.

[aram]

I'm trying to understand this entire statement?

sorry everyone.

concise and articulate verbiage has never been my forte.

after college i had a job as a bus driver on Martha's Vineyard.

I had a short 10 minute loop, but they gave me over a half an hour to do it, so during my 20 minute breaks I listened to this tape of Bird playing on Rhythm Changes.

Over a period of a few weeks, I memorized that solo and learned it entirely by ear.

I would play back the tape over and over until I was sure, based on what the piano or bass was playing, that he was playing a flat nine as opposed to a natural or sharp nine. I didn't have my guitar to help me, just my ear.

It took a long time, but did get easier. keep in mind that i had a few hours each day to work at it. (:

at the end of those weeks i wrote it down and learned to play it on guitar. i also studied how he phrased.

BUT

during that time, I was also writing my own songs and doing my own things.

certainly learning the solo helped my development, but in my experience it wasn't as important as the times i spent writing my own music.

I spent four years studying with Yusef Lateef.

Every Wednesday morning we would spend a couple of hours in a private lesson.

One of the more profound lessons was this.

I came in, having learned "Donna Lee."

I played it for him and he looked at me and said,

"Brother Aram, I learned that piece in 1945. Why are you still playing it in 1996?"

I think he was saying that that language of bebop was developed in the 40's and 50's, but now a new language needed to happen. Or more importantly, music that expressed what was happening in 1996 needed to happen.

And we still listened to Bird, Coleman Hawkins, and Betty Carter.

But during all my time with him, Yusef always pushed me to play my ideas and voice, not other peoples.

Even when he was telling me about his daily practice sessions with Sonny Stitt, or driving Trane to a recording session, or when Mingus drew a coffin on his lead sheet and said, "Play that. That's your solo."

It all went back to what I had to say, not about me copying other peoples work.

[Tomo]

Do all you need to do.

Do all you don't want to do.

Do all you want to do.

Play exact... play less notes... more feel... You need a lot of hard work. but with CLEAR direction, choices.

Enjoy!

Try this. Push record button. Play everything you can! Then listen to it!

Tomo

[aram]

Same here. Obviously we share virtually nothing when it comes to tutelage. Probably best to agree to disagree and move on because you and I are about as far apart fire and ice on this issue.

it's cool jack!! no hard feelings.

btw, was that a robert frost lick in your last sentence?

(:

[aram]

GovernorSilver wrote:
I'm not him but to me, it's the difference in learning something to check out and gain some insight, not learning it to regurgitate note-for-note in one of your solos on the bandstand or on a recording.


yeah that's exactly it!!!

but also, if trying to sound just like someone else is what you dig, then go for it.

there's nothing wrong with that.

just understand that others may not necessarily want to go in that direction.

[GovernorSilver]

GovernorSilver wrote:
I'm not him but to me, it's the difference in learning something to check out and gain some insight, not learning it to regurgitate note-for-note in one of your solos on the bandstand or on a recording.

I am reasonably certain that is NOT what Jack is advocating at all.

"learning something to check out and gain some insight" is what most people seem to be doing, in actuality.

[russ6100]

GovernorSilver wrote:
I am reasonably certain that is NOT what Jack is advocating at all.Right - which is why I find it puzzling that these two believe that they're somehow diametrically opposed philosophically....

[aram]

agreed, maybe jack and i are saying the same thing, it's just semantics.

or he may place a greater emphasis on transcribing while I place a greater emphasis when teaching on exploring a students own ideas.

but either way, each approach has it's place.

I know I learned different things from different teachers over the years. There was a time when getting my ass kicked by Jack might have done me some good. Heck, it might still do me some good!!!! (:

but yeah, it's all good.

[jzucker]

who cares if it's imitating or not?!? By imitating a classic, you are guaranteed to learn something worth learning. If you live your life in a vacuum what you will have to show for it is more likely than not going to be like a vacuum - EMPTY

[russ6100]

jzucker wrote:
who cares if it's imitating or not?!? By imitating a classic, you are guaranteed to learn something worth learning. If you live your life in a vacuum what you will have to show for it is more likely than not going to be like a vacuum - EMPTYWhooooaaaaahhh now..... :D

Who is advocating living in a vacuum?

[seiko]

who cares if it's imitating or not?!? By imitating a classic, you are guaranteed to learn something worth learning. If you live your life in a vacuum what you will have to show for it is more likely than not going to be like a vacuum - EMPTY

From my point of view, because pure xerox-style imitation gets wearing pretty quickly.

It is really easy to illustrate this with just one salient figure. Randy Hansen. He is incredibly accurate in copying Jimi Hendrix's playing but no one cares, because that's all he does. There has to be some kind of point where you move beyond pure imitation.

There are many other examples....

[KRosser]

Whooooaaaaahhh now..... :D

Who is advocating living in a vacuum?


Yeah...

It does seem to be a unrealistically polarized set of options.

I know Aram's playing and workload enough to say that whatever it is he's doing, he should keep doing it.

Me personally, I learned an awful lot from learning and playing along with records but I would never let that leave the practice room, at least not intentionally.

When I was playing and studying with Bennie Wallace and I asked him about transcribing he told me, "there's a time to do it and a time to stop".

That made a lot of sense to me. I don't think this is a black and white situation.

[aram]

hey.

I hope i didn't give the impression that I believe in living in a vacuum.

I loath vacuuming and always have.

I've always relished listening to new things. My grandfather used to drop me of at the library when he went to play cards at the senior center, and I would read through all the Mozart scores. But you know what? That day I first found a record called "Music of Indonesia- The Gamelan." That just completely opened up a whole new world.

Vacuums certainly are boring and empty. But I think that someone who spends their whole life trying to imitate someone else is also in a vacuum. But either way, I think that Ken is right.

I think that somewhere in the middle, is the right path. Yeah, we've all heard music by people who were "doing their own thing" that was just awful.

and i have to admit, the other day I was getting a little frustrated with a drummer i was working with because he wasn't shuffling in an Al Jackson way.

speaking of Hendrix, have you guys ever heard any of the gonje (one string fiddle music) from the Dagomba people of Northern Ghana?

I studied it for a bit when I was there and man. When played by a master, that stuff makes Hendrix look tame!!!
(:

[dewey decibel]

Music is much more complicated than most people seem to think. There's so much your average listener doesn't even hear, it's quite amazing (unless you're some kind of savant) It takes years and years to be able to hear and grasp some of these ideas, and the best (maybe only way?) to hear these things is to get inside them through copying.

As the OP is saying he's not even really hearing what's going on- he hears enough to know it's a pentatonic line, but he's not hearing more than that. Well, to hear more than that you have to get inside it and really figure out what it is, and the only way I can see to do that is to mimic it.

Now beyond that, saying you want to sound exactly like a certain player, that's another issue. But I think 95% of the top players have at some point tried to speak with the voice of someone else. And I think that's fine, because sometimes you need to speak with someone else's voice till you can find your own. But I agree, at some point you need to take a step away and start speaking with your own voice, and that point is going to be different for everybody.

[Ken Ho]

hey.



and i have to admit, the other day I was getting a little frustrated with a drummer i was working with because he wasn't shuffling in an Al Jackson way.

(:

Looks like the ice is melting !!:Devil

[KRosser]

speaking of Hendrix, have you guys ever heard any of the gonje (one string fiddle music) from the Dagomba people of Northern Ghana?

I studied it for a bit when I was there and man. When played by a master, that stuff makes Hendrix look tame!!!
(:

I'm not so up on Ghanain music but there's a one-string fiddle from Mali (the njarka? sp?) that Ali Farka Toure played that's pretty mind bending...I wonder if it's closely related to the thing you're talking about...

[KRosser]

Music is much more complicated than most people seem to think. There's so much your average listener doesn't even hear, it's quite amazing (unless you're some kind of savant) It takes years and years to be able to hear and grasp some of these ideas, and the best (maybe only way?) to hear these things is to get inside them through copying.

As the OP is saying he's not even really hearing what's going on- he hears enough to know it's a pentatonic line, but he's not hearing more than that. Well, to hear more than that you have to get inside it and really figure out what it is, and the only way I can see to do that is to mimic it.

Now beyond that, saying you want to sound exactly like a certain player, that's another issue. But I think 95% of the top players have at some point tried to speak with the voice of someone else. And I think that's fine, because sometimes you need to speak with someone else's voice till you can find your own. But I agree, at some point you need to take a step away and start speaking with your own voice, and that point is going to be different for everybody.

I guess this is what I find a little frustrating about this discussion sometimes.

I don't live in an ivory tower where I can fantasize about following in the footsteps of the great players. I'ma 46 year old man trying to make a living and trying to put together a real body of work I can be proud of someday. I have real gigs that pose real challenges that require real solutions, not ideal ones.

I don't care what path Coltrane or Wes took. I'm not gonna begin to flatter myself that that's my path, at all.

I'm long past the age where I thought I could be one of the greats. Now I'm just trying to stick my name on something I can be proud of.

[kimock]

I guess this is what I find a little frustrating about this discussion sometimes.

I don't live in an ivory tower where I can fantasize about following in the footsteps of the great players. I'ma 46 year old man trying to make a living and trying to put together a real body of work I can be proud of someday. I have real gigs that pose real challenges that require real solutions, not ideal ones.

I don't care what path Coltrane or Wes took. I'm not gonna begin to flatter myself that that's my path, at all.

I'm long past the age where I thought I could be one of the greats. Now I'm just trying to stick my name on something I can be proud of.

That's courage.

[Bryan T]

I'm long past the age where I thought I could be one of the greats.

I think 3.3 is great . . .

[dewey decibel]

I guess this is what I find a little frustrating about this discussion sometimes.

I don't live in an ivory tower where I can fantasize about following in the footsteps of the great players. I'ma 46 year old man trying to make a living and trying to put together a real body of work I can be proud of someday. I have real gigs that pose real challenges that require real solutions, not ideal ones.

I don't care what path Coltrane or Wes took. I'm not gonna begin to flatter myself that that's my path, at all.

I'm long past the age where I thought I could be one of the greats. Now I'm just trying to stick my name on something I can be proud of.


When I was around 20-21 and at the point where I was playing a 3-4 times a week, I was deciding if I wanted to play the music I loved (jazz) for a living. And I did, but on my terms, and of course all the gigs I was getting were forcing me to be someone else. So I quit taking gigs I didn't want to do (which was 95% of them) and decided to find another means to make money. And since then I've been very protective of my vocabulary, because I'd decided that by not being a "working player" I had that luxury.

And I'm happy with the path I've chosen, and right now I'm in the best place musically I've ever been. But I do understand that by skipping that "working player" role there's a lot I've missed out on, and you and several others here have a very different view for doing it that way (which is why I enjoy posting on this board).

Anyway, I haven't even heard that much of your stuff but from what I have I'd say you can be very proud already.

[KRosser]

When I was around 20-21 and at the point where I was playing a 3-4 times a week, I was deciding if I wanted to play the music I loved (jazz) for a living. And I did, but on my terms, and of course all the gigs I was getting were forcing me to be someone else. So I quit taking gigs I didn't want to do (which was 95% of them) and decided to find another means to make money. And since then I've been very protective of my vocabulary, because I'd decided that by not being a "working player" I had that luxury.

And I'm happy with the path I've chosen, and right now I'm in the best place musically I've ever been. But I do understand that by skipping that "working player" role there's a lot I've missed out on, and you and several others here have a very different view for doing it that way (which is why I enjoy posting on this board).

Anyway, I haven't even heard that much of your stuff but from what I have I'd say you can be very proud already.

Thank you, and I totally respect where you're coming from here..

I didn't mean to make it sound like I was jumping on you, yours was just the handiest post to quote from.

I just get tired of being told I need to look to "the greats" for direction when I can see my own path. I know it's not meant maliciously. I just want something of my own, because I accept I'll never stand alongside those guys. It just feels like folly to me and life's so short.

I just felt like getting that off my chest.

[KRosser]

I think 3.3 is great . . .

Thanks 3.4.....

[aram]

When I was around 20-21 and at the point where I was playing a 3-4 times a week, I was deciding if I wanted to play the music I loved (jazz) for a living. And I did, but on my terms, and of course all the gigs I was getting were forcing me to be someone else. So I quit taking gigs I didn't want to do (which was 95% of them) and decided to find another means to make money. And since then I've been very protective of my vocabulary, because I'd decided that by not being a "working player" I had that luxury.

And I'm happy with the path I've chosen, and right now I'm in the best place musically I've ever been. But I do understand that by skipping that "working player" role there's a lot I've missed out on, and you and several others here have a very different view for doing it that way (which is why I enjoy posting on this board).

Anyway, I haven't even heard that much of your stuff but from what I have I'd say you can be very proud already.

it's interesting, I was talking to a friend about this the other day.

i play in a jazz/improvised music trio with him.

I was telling him that in the past year, I've been trying to say "yes" to as many different playing situations as i can.

I'll accompany friends at open mics, I play with this great Iranian singer, Haale, I've been playing with the original CAN singer, Malcolm Mooney, and then the trio with this drummer. There's other stuff too, but this is the main stuff. In the past I had focused on my rock band, and turned a lot of other work down.

anyway, as things happen, with each gig that I do, I have someone asking me to do something else, and i've been saying "yes" to it.

I was telling this drummer that in the past year because of these diverse playing experiences, my playing has improved more than any other time in my playing. I was also telling him that he should do it too, that it would help fill up certain inconsistencies in his playing.

It forces you to switch mindsets quickly, from avant soloist to accompaniest playing simple triads, to rocking out.

it's a really great experience.

and yet, I don't see anything wrong with the approach you're taking.

You've decided to really delve into mastering the jazz language and I think that's great. I have a lot of respect for that.

Personally, I know that I'm never going to be able to solo the way Brad Mehldau does on Countdown.

It's just not something that I am either talented enough to do, or patient and focused enough to do.

But that's okay. You don't have to be able to play on Countdown to play good music.

And Ken, I think that what you said above is great.

It's great because you're at the point where your just playing out of your soul. You've cut past all the BS of right notes and wrong note and are just playing from that space of pure joy and love of playing.

And that in itself is great.

Tonight I played a gig, with this singer.

And they asked us to do an encore, so we did Amazing Grace.

And she has this great gospel voice and there was a point where she got so heavy that I almost couldn't play. it was coming from such a deep space. we created something great- you could hear a pin drop.

i remember when my grandfather was dieing, he would stand on the top of the steps outside the house and sing amazing grace at the top of his lungs.

And my grandmother would yell "Suren, shut up! the whole neighborhood can hear you!" But he would just keep singing, all out of tune, but with his whole heart.

and to me, that was the most beautiful music i've ever heard.

and so whenever i play, that's what i go for.

it doesn't matter if i'm playing stella or a blues, or some punk song.

but i really play as though it might be the last time i ever get to play guitar, as though i might never be able to play music again. I go into that space and play from there.

how can i imitate someone else and really be doing that?

[KRosser]

That's courage.

Thanks...

[KRosser]

I was telling him that in the past year, I've been trying to say "yes" to as many different playing situations as i can.

My 'career plan', such as it is, for the last 25 years....

You've decided to really delve into mastering the jazz language and I think that's great. I have a lot of respect for that.

I spent a few years devoted to that language too but I don't think I ever flattered myself into think I was mastering anything.

To the contrary, every year that goes by for me in music it feels more like an ocean, no way to even think about controlling or mastering it, but maybe if you learn its ways you can catch a good wave now and then

But that's okay. You don't have to be able to play on Countdown to play good music.

Truer words were never spoken.

but i really play as though it might be the last time i ever get to play guitar, as though i might never be able to play music again.

Think about it - one day, that will be true....I know I do.

I go into that space and play from there.

how can i imitate someone else and really be doing that?

We're absolutely on the same page here.

[DrSax]

I love analyzing Parker. But when it comes to improvising on a gig, or EVEN DURING PRACTICE, I can't bring myself to mimic his exact phrasing or lick. I know how something is going to sound because I've done that work, but something in me will go ahead and change it or come to it from a different angle etc. It's not a happy thing for me to copy it exactly, but it's a happy thing to understand why those things work in context, so much so that it's ingrained in you as much as words are, so you can then play with it and make your own statement.

[dewey decibel]

Thank you, and I totally respect where you're coming from here..

I didn't mean to make it sound like I was jumping on you, yours was just the handiest post to quote from.

I just get tired of being told I need to look to "the greats" for direction when I can see my own path. I know it's not meant maliciously. I just want something of my own, because I accept I'll never stand alongside those guys. It just feels like folly to me and life's so short.

I just felt like getting that off my chest.


I understand. It can get confusing on these boards because you'll be responding to both one person and everyone at the same time.

[Ken Ho]

Ya know, it's a funny thing this forum.
This thread has gone from a fairly polarised opening statement, through some argy-bargy to becoming pure inspiration.
It's almost like there's been a campfire, and it's burning low now, and the bottles are nearly empty, but that means people are listening as much as they are talking.
I like this. Thanks again guys.

[dewey decibel]

it's interesting, I was talking to a friend about this the other day.

i play in a jazz/improvised music trio with him.

I was telling him that in the past year, I've been trying to say "yes" to as many different playing situations as i can.

I'll accompany friends at open mics, I play with this great Iranian singer, Haale, I've been playing with the original CAN singer, Malcolm Mooney, and then the trio with this drummer. There's other stuff too, but this is the main stuff. In the past I had focused on my rock band, and turned a lot of other work down.

anyway, as things happen, with each gig that I do, I have someone asking me to do something else, and i've been saying "yes" to it.

I was telling this drummer that in the past year because of these diverse playing experiences, my playing has improved more than any other time in my playing. I was also telling him that he should do it too, that it would help fill up certain inconsistencies in his playing.

It forces you to switch mindsets quickly, from avant soloist to accompaniest playing simple triads, to rocking out.

it's a really great experience.

and yet, I don't see anything wrong with the approach you're taking.

You've decided to really delve into mastering the jazz language and I think that's great. I have a lot of respect for that.

Personally, I know that I'm never going to be able to solo the way Brad Mehldau does on Countdown.

It's just not something that I am either talented enough to do, or patient and focused enough to do.

But that's okay. You don't have to be able to play on Countdown to play good music.




You know, I agree completely, and I'll even say I've been doing some of the same. I've been in many different playing situations the last two years or so (although not as varied as yours). But I'll say this; the difference between now and back then is I only agree to enter the situation if it's with people I feel I see eye to eye with. To be honest, playing calibre doesn't even enter into it much, it's more about attitude, approach, and taste. What really bugged me before is I was playing with a lot of people whom claimed to be playing jazz, but really weren't, at least not the way I think of jazz. Especially singers (sorry singers). I mean reading Sinatra tunes out of a fake book isn't really it for me, I don't get that at all. And let's face it, most people that play straight ahead jazz these days are already a little weird....
:crazyguy

The main thing for me is I don't care if I get paid or not, I just want to have fun and do things that allow me to grow and learn how to better communicate as a musician. I feel that when you decide that you want to focus on a particular genre and do it for a living, plus are from a smaller city, it's a recipe for heartache.

And you know what's funny about the jazz language? It wasn't till I stepped away from it a bit that a lot of it really started to click for me.

[rob2001]

I've learned some cool riffs and tricks by imitation but thats not where my strongest stuff comes from. See, i'm very lazy! During all the years of being in a cover band, I seldomly did leads note for note because I was too lazy to put the time in. Yes, some licks had to be there but seeing that i'm so lazy, most of what I did was improv in the vein of the song we were covering. So because of that I developed my own vocabulary and it's very benificial now that i'm writing my own stuff.

But thats what works for me and i'll be the first to admit that my approach isn't correct and it's born from bad habits!