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

[JonR]

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

It should be easy, after all, to play the exact same phrase twice.
(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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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?

Originally Posted by 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.

+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

Originally Posted by 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

[kimock]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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 realize that lmao

[highway-one]

Originally Posted by kimock

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]

Originally Posted by 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 do this often this is a cool way to do it.

[Shiny McShine]

Originally Posted by 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 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

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.