the appearing phrase

[highway-one]

I have a question

how should I go about in my thoughts in order to create a great phrase that is the ultimate match to the previous one, how should I look at the previous one to make a cousin to it with out making a twin, or is a twin phrase better or more powerfull than a new simmular but not idintacle one? so how do you make a great phrase relating to a previous phrase when your playing, without thinking. or is the answer by not thinking???? answers like years of practice are prohibited.

-John handcock :peenut

[JonR]

How about "hours of practice"? (or even less)

It should be easy, after all, to play the exact same phrase twice.:rolleyes:
(If you can't, you're not thinking properly first time you play it.)

So alter one note on 2nd run through. Either change its pitch, or its timing (rhythmic placement). You need to experiment to find what the effective alterations are - what kind of pitch or rhythm changes work, and where in the phrase. This shouldn't take "years" of practice, but it may take a while to get confident in shaping many different kinds of phrases this way. (There's no rules here that could be written down. It's up to you and what kind of sounds you like.)

It is actually pretty effective to repeat a phrase exactly, 2 or 3 times. Repetition can make a dull phrase sound exciting. (It makes the phrase sound composed, rather than an accidental improvisation. Repetition induces suspense and expectation.)
Eg, you could play one phrase 3 times, then the 4th time play a shorter version (chopping off the start or end - just make sure the last note is a chord tone - although even that is not always essential). Or play the same phrase twice, and a longer one 3rd time. (It's a classic melodic form.)

Naturally, the chord sequence is going to govern a lot of what you can and can't do. You have most freedom if it's a single chord vamp, naturally.

[Mandoboy]

Think like a composer (there's some food for thought!)

Check out Django Reinhardt- his solos have a very logical sense of structure, they are built from the mind of a composer. Check out the 1949 (Rome Sessions) "After You've Gone"- there are phrases that are repeated, but never with the same 'payoff' at the end.

Melodic and rhythmic development, intelligent use of space...

Off the top of my head, a few good classic rock examples are the solos on "Time" and "Heartbreaker", where each phrase has a sense of inevitability following the previous phrase.

This is not about 'copping licks', but seeing the overall approach to creating shape and form in a solo. A "lick" is a dead thing if you can't morph it- to me, it's a matter of melodic variation vs. stagnation. Django, Charlie Parker etc. all had their 'licks' that they could vary and twist creatively, to the point where over dozens of solos, they can play similar melodic material that is never exactly the same twice.

There's a big difference between 'modular lick insertion' and a well constructed solo- and why truly great improvisation is such a bitch!

So, try practicing by playing a phrase (something you like), and then come up with 3 or 4 ways to juggle the same notes- you may have to elimate a bunch of them as 'not happening', but when you get variations you like, record 'em or write 'em down so you remember them. Then, assemble them in a line- play the original, then through the subsequent variations (maybe the simplest change 1st, etc).

Do this with whatever you are tired of in your playing- automatic stuff- and you'll probably get a lot more mileage out of the same material.

PS- what's wrong with years of practice? Ya got something better to do? ;)

[dkaplowitz]

Since I happened to be listening to it while reading this thread, check out Roy Clark's lines on "Your Cheatin' Heart" on the record he did with Joe Pass. Very nice use/permutations of phrases (and accessible).

[highway-one]

good good deal thanks for responding im going to read these posts and go try to make some phrases that know eachother fine

[highway-one]

Think like a composer (there's some food for thought!)

Check out Django Reinhardt- his solos have a very logical sense of structure, they are built from the mind of a composer. Check out the 1949 (Rome Sessions) "After You've Gone"- there are phrases that are repeated, but never with the same 'payoff' at the end.

Melodic and rhythmic development, intelligent use of space...

Off the top of my head, a few good classic rock examples are the solos on "Time" and "Heartbreaker", where each phrase has a sense of inevitability following the previous phrase.

This is not about 'copping licks', but seeing the overall approach to creating shape and form in a solo. A "lick" is a dead thing if you can't morph it- to me, it's a matter of melodic variation vs. stagnation. Django, Charlie Parker etc. all had their 'licks' that they could vary and twist creatively, to the point where over dozens of solos, they can play similar melodic material that is never exactly the same twice.

There's a big difference between 'modular lick insertion' and a well constructed solo- and why truly great improvisation is such a bitch!

So, try practicing by playing a phrase (something you like), and then come up with 3 or 4 ways to juggle the same notes- you may have to elimate a bunch of them as 'not happening', but when you get variations you like, record 'em or write 'em down so you remember them. Then, assemble them in a line- play the original, then through the subsequent variations (maybe the simplest change 1st, etc).

Do this with whatever you are tired of in your playing- automatic stuff- and you'll probably get a lot more mileage out of the same material.

PS- what's wrong with years of practice? Ya got something better to do? ;)


I have nothing better to do

[highway-one]

theres no place Id rather be but in a studio playing with phrasing

[Neer]

You're going top think I'm a jerk for mentioning this, but it's a lot like putting cohesive paragraphs and sentences together. The ideas usually are related to the phrases which came before and are a continuation of a thought.

I had trouble reading your initial post because your grammar was all over the place and just one long run on sentence. Think about it--it's kind of the same approach.

[dewey decibel]

I have to ask- what are you listening to? and are you really hearing it?


You're going top think I'm a jerk for mentioning this, but it's a lot like putting cohesive paragraphs and sentences together. The ideas usually are related to the phrases which came before and are a continuation of a thought.

I had trouble reading your initial post because your grammar was all over the place and just one long run on sentence. Think about it--it's kind of the same approach.


+1. It all comes from the same place. If you read this forum you'll notice a lot of the guys that are successful players write in clear, concise posts. A lot of guys that aren't don't communicate as clearly and ask the same thing over and over again. Just an observation...

[purestmonk]

if you can play a solo that you sing in your head throughout a song, then your phrasing will be natural and logical .. if you're loooking at patterns .. then goodluck

I have a question

how should I go about in my thoughts in order to create a great phrase that is the ultimate match to the previous one, how should I look at the previous one to make a cousin to it with out making a twin, or is a twin phrase better or more powerfull than a new simmular but not idintacle one? so how do you make a great phrase relating to a previous phrase when your playing, without thinking. or is the answer by not thinking???? answers like years of practice are prohibited.

-John handcock :peenut

[kimock]

I have a question

how should I go about in my thoughts in order to create a great phrase that is the ultimate match to the previous one, how should I look at the previous one to make a cousin to it with out making a twin, or is a twin phrase better or more powerfull than a new simmular but not idintacle one? so how do you make a great phrase relating to a previous phrase when your playing, without thinking. or is the answer by not thinking???? answers like years of practice are prohibited.

-John handcock :peenut

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Depends how you look at it, from the bottom up or the top down.
Either way I guess you could say "object or detail" of motion.

If you start at the bottom you might say "What's the minimum amount of info that might be a phrase?", so arguably that would be two notes.
So for the sake of argument lets call that two different notes.
So one note, and then maybe a higher note.

So you could call that "Up".

Now there's only so many times you can use that idea "Up" before you're going to want to hear something different.
E G, E G, E G, E D E maybe.

Now it doesn't matter how many times you play the first little 'cell' of that Up-and-Down-ness, or how you mix it up, the bottom line is by finishing the phrase, you've gone beyond the original rule that created the phrase in the first place, and the completed new phrase is now the bit you're going to have to respond to.

Doesn't matter what the initial basic operation is, there are only so many times you can repeat it before it suggests some counter operation to resolve it.

That's the bottom-up deal. Difficult to micro-manage even for the most anal control freak, those pesky little specific moves tend to exhibit an emergent property of turning into larger phrases not beholden to the original scheme.

I haven't got time for 'Top Down' right now, but you can invert the "From small specific to unknown larger" idea yourself.
Big general plan with lots of unresolved details, basically.

If you really set your mind to something and give it your very best shot, you will eventually fail and move on to something that requires little or no thought.
This might be an excellent time for you to throw "Phrasing" under the bus and concentrate on nothing in particular beyond moving forward in time.
Your answer will come in hindsight, when it is no longer a question.

That circumvents the "years of practice" problem nicely, wouldn't you agree?

[highway-one]

You're going top think I'm a jerk for mentioning this, but it's a lot like putting cohesive paragraphs and sentences together. The ideas usually are related to the phrases which came before and are a continuation of a thought.
.


I realize that lmao

[highway-one]

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Depends how you look at it, from the bottom up or the top down.
Either way I guess you could say "object or detail" of motion.

If you start at the bottom you might say "What's the minimum amount of info that might be a phrase?", so arguably that would be two notes.
So for the sake of argument lets call that two different notes.
So one note, and then maybe a higher note.

So you could call that "Up".

Now there's only so many times you can use that idea "Up" before you're going to want to hear something different.
E G, E G, E G, E D E maybe.

Now it doesn't matter how many times you play the first little 'cell' of that Up-and-Down-ness, or how you mix it up, the bottom line is by finishing the phrase, you've gone beyond the original rule that created the phrase in the first place, and the completed new phrase is now the bit you're going to have to respond to.

Doesn't matter what the initial basic operation is, there are only so many times you can repeat it before it suggests some counter operation to resolve it.

That's the bottom-up deal. Difficult to micro-manage even for the most anal control freak, those pesky little specific moves tend to exhibit an emergent property of turning into larger phrases not beholden to the original scheme.

I haven't got time for 'Top Down' right now, but you can invert the "From small specific to unknown larger" idea yourself.
Big general plan with lots of unresolved details, basically.

If you really set your mind to something and give it your very best shot, you will eventually fail and move on to something that requires little or no thought.
This might be an excellent time for you to throw "Phrasing" under the bus and concentrate on nothing in particular beyond moving forward in time.
Your answer will come in hindsight, when it is no longer a question.

That circumvents the "years of practice" problem nicely, wouldn't you agree?

thanks for your time i enjoyed the hell out of that essay

[highway-one]

if you can play a solo that you sing in your head throughout a song, then your phrasing will be natural and logical .. if you're loooking at patterns .. then goodluck


I do this often this is a cool way to do it.

[Shiny McShine]

I have a question

how should I go about in my thoughts in order to create a great phrase that is the ultimate match to the previous one, how should I look at the previous one to make a cousin to it with out making a twin, or is a twin phrase better or more powerful than a new simmular but not identical one? so how do you make a great phrase relating to a previous phrase when your playing, without thinking. or is the answer by not thinking???? answers like years of practice are prohibited.

-John handcock :peenut

Good question. In my early years writing, I used to always try to match the next sentence closely. Then I found that sometimes a leap into fresh territory yielded interesting results and supported the mood and direction of the idea by providing a pause in the hammering. I look at all the people rushing to lunch at a noon and having to get back to work. They never get to enjoy their lunch because they can't really separate from their daily tasks. Writing is like breathing. There's a time when you exhale.

[bigdaddy]

If you really set your mind to something and give it your very best shot, you will eventually fail and move on to something that requires little or no thought.
This might be an excellent time for you to throw "Phrasing" under the bus and concentrate on nothing in particular beyond moving forward in time.
Your answer will come in hindsight, when it is no longer a question.

Steve, from your perspective I can see how this makes perfect sense. From my perspective, it's rather hard to fathom. The what, how and why questions are obviously a big barrier to improvisation. But, to further the writing analogy, isn't a command of the alphabet, a vocabulary, and a knowledge of syntax a prerequisite of a poem or a story?

[kimock]

Steve, from your perspective I can see how this makes perfect sense. From my perspective, it's rather hard to fathom. The what, how and why questions are obviously a big barrier to improvisation. But, to further the writing analogy, isn't a command of the alphabet, a vocabulary, and a knowledge of syntax a prerequisite of a poem or a story?

It would sure seem like it, but apparently the prerequisite for storytelling is having a story to tell, which is more about accumulation of experience than specific alphabet, vocabulary, syntax etc.

[bigdaddy]

It would sure seem like it, but apparently the prerequisite for storytelling is having a story to tell, which is more about accumulation of experience than specific alphabet, vocabulary, syntax etc.

Great! Now you've brought me to the brink of uncertainty about whether or not I have a musical story to tell.

Perhaps 'concentrating on nothing in particular beyond moving forward in time' will be where I begin when I pick up my guitar this evening. I'm not sure if I can figure out if it's the end or the beginning. I know I'll get there soon.

[Mark Robinson]

If "practice" is "out of bounds" then how about mimicry? Making a good solo section can be thought of as resembling describing the contents of a room from outside the room. Practice and understanding will lead you to know where various doors and windows are, that allow you to access more of what's in the room, from an assortment of angles.

Or you can mimic someone else's description word for word, which is easier for sure. It takes a three or four dimensional process and turns it into a straight line or maybe a plane. Then you cut up your line or sheet stash, and reassemble in different orders. Whole careers have been fashioned in this manner.

[highway-one]

Good question. In my early years writing, I used to always try to match the next sentence closely. Then I found that sometimes a leap into fresh territory yielded interesting results and supported the mood and direction of the idea by providing a pause in the hammering. I look at all the people rushing to lunch at a noon and having to get back to work. They never get to enjoy their lunch because they can't really separate from their daily tasks. Writing is like breathing. There's a time when you exhale.


hallelujah
THATS IT!

[tiptone]

It would sure seem like it, but apparently the prerequisite for storytelling is having a story to tell, which is more about accumulation of experience than specific alphabet, vocabulary, syntax etc.

I really love to play, but after years of doing it I've begun to fear that I have no story to tell. :)

[JonR]

Great! Now you've brought me to the brink of uncertainty about whether or not I have a musical story to tell. You don't. At least I know I don't. Not before playing anything. Music doesn't exist until someone plays it. (You might think you have musical ideas on your head - but they're just swirling around in a big soup. To play music is to draw it out note by note in a strand. That's how it becomes a "story".)
You generally find the "story" as soon as you begin playing.
The piece you're improvising on gives you the story; you just tell it your own way.
Or if you're improvising from scratch, then the first note is the first "word". As long as you listen to each note as it emerges - and it's pretty hard not to - a "story" creates itself.
IOW, it's pretty difficult to play totally at random - just as it's quite difficult to speak words that are totally random. (You find yourself struggling to find a word that has nothing to do with the previous one; whereas sensible syntax flows quite quickly.)
It's very hard to avoid making sense, because any time you get a pair of notes together, it's an interval with musical meaning that you can't fail to recognise. Even with no backing track or song providing raw material, your mind tends to hear suitable following notes, based on things you've heard before.
(The inevitability of this inner musical logic is probably what iritated John Cage into trying to introduce systems that would produce random results outside his control, such as the I Ching.)

Perhaps 'concentrating on nothing in particular beyond moving forward in time' will be where I begin when I pick up my guitar this evening. I'm not sure if I can figure out if it's the end or the beginning. I know I'll get there soon.There's no end or beginning! ;)
What happens when you pick up your instrument is you kind of plug back into the musical "ether" - pick up where you left off. And when you put it down it's not an ending, you're just "logging off" temporarily. (A great Brazilian music teacher I had once used to say that the clave rhythm is something that is always ticking along in the air. When you start playing you just hook yourself on to it.)
Any apparently completed and resolved composition you produce is just a chapter in a never-ending story.
(Oh dear this is turning into a Disney film.... :facepalm)

[Ooogie]

What happens when you pick up your instrument is you kind of plug back into the musical "ether" - pick up where you left off. And when you put it down it's not an ending, you're just "logging off" temporarily. (A great Brazilian music teacher I had once used to say that the clave rhythm is something that is always ticking along in the air. When you start playing you just hook yourself on to it.)
Any apparently completed and resolved composition you produce is just a chapter in a never-ending story.
(Oh dear this is turning into a Disney film.... :facepalm)

I like that, Victor Wooten said something similar in The Music Lesson. Something along the lines of... All the notes have already been played and are in the air, we just grab them and shape them as we channel them out through the instrument. The reason we practice is to get our technique to a high enough level that we're able to do this without concentrating so we don't impede the flow.

I like that way of looking at it, something about it resonates with me and it fits in with the way I like to practice and learn. I like to practice and add new techniques quite often, just in the hopes that someday they'll come out as something unique in my playing.

Mark

[Tomo]

I have a question

how should I go about in my thoughts in order to create a great phrase that is the ultimate match to the previous one, how should I look at the previous one to make a cousin to it with out making a twin, or is a twin phrase better or more powerfull than a new simmular but not idintacle one? so how do you make a great phrase relating to a previous phrase when your playing, without thinking. or is the answer by not thinking???? answers like years of practice are prohibited.

-John handcock :peenut

When you practice, you can think as much as you need and when you play your performance, you should not even think name of scales. Conversation.
Less unproductive hours of practice.

I made this simple lesson, maybe you can use phrasing idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovHX0xfCmp4

Tomo

[litlounge]

When you practice, you can think as much as you need and when you play your performance, you should not even think name of scales. Conversation.
Less unproductive hours of practice.

I made this simple lesson, maybe you can use phrasing idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovHX0xfCmp4

Tomo

exactly! nobody will ever go up to an artist after a show and say "hey, was that mixolydian you just played?" LOL, i heard john mayer say that once. classic!

[highway-one]

:messedupI really love to play, but after years of doing it I've begun to fear that I have no story to tell. :)
ur wrong have u considered saying something that goes well with the last thing you said? you are wrong. its pretty simple.

[JonR]

I like that, Victor Wooten said something similar in The Music Lesson. Something along the lines of... All the notes have already been played and are in the air, we just grab them and shape them as we channel them out through the instrument. The reason we practice is to get our technique to a high enough level that we're able to do this without concentrating so we don't impede the flow. Yes.

Unfortunately, it seems it's only when we're good enough technically that we arrive at that kind of thought. We find we can play at random with facility, and - whaddya know? - ideas emerge. Hey, how did that happen?

Of course they don't come "out of the air" (or from God or any other kind of spiritual muse) - that's just a projection. They come from our heads.
And that's also down to having plenty of playing experience.

The more we play (as well as the more we listen to music) the more ideas go into our heads. A whole library builds up in there, even though we're unaware of most of it. It's all "stolen", naturally - but it all gets mixed up together. One melodic idea might hook up with another, creating a new one.

Then when we play, each sound we produce resonates in that library, and pulls forth a bunch of notes that (our subconscious thinks) go together. The more stuff we have in there, the more "original" the inspiration will sound, because it's less likely a whole stolen lick will emerge unaltered.

But all of this is simply a reason for saying: don't worry about struggling to be "creative". The less you impose your will on the process, the less you start out with an intention, the more you just play randomly without trying to guide it; the more likely it is that ideas will emerge.
Not all of them will be good of course. That's when you begin to exert judgement (if you want to).
That's why recording your noodling is a good idea. You will think "why am I recording this, it's garbage" - but do it anyway and keep playing. Maybe you'll hear a good idea as you play - but maybe one will pass by without you noticing, that will only be apparent when you play it all back. Without recording, a good phrase can just fly off into the air, as it were, and you lose hold of it. (That's no problem if you're just improvising, but damned annoying if you're trying to compose.)

[highway-one]

Im offended:hiP