For those people who think studying&imitating other people's music is bad and who think it's ALL about "finding your own voice/identity"

“First of all, I never strive for identity. That’s something that just has happened automatically as a result, I think, of just putting things together, tearing things apart and putting it together my own way, and somehow I guess the individual comes through eventually.”

Bill Evans

"When you begin to teach jazz, the most dangerous thing is that you tend to teach style…I had eleven piano students, and I would say eight of them didn’t’t even want to know about chords or anything - they didn’t’t even want to do anything that anybody had ever done, because they didn’t’t want to be imitators. Well, of course, this is pretty naive…but nevertheless it does bring to light the fact that if you’re going to try to teach jazz…you must abstract the principles of music which have nothing to do with style, and this is exceedingly difficult. So there, the teaching of jazz is a very touchy point. It ends up where the jazz player, ultimately, if he’s going to be a serious jazz player, teaches himself.”

Bill Evans

"People make a mistake who think
that my art has come easily to me.
Nobody has devoted so much time
and thought to composition as I. There
is not a famous master whose music
I have not studied over and over."

Mozart

And some great insights on practicing from Dave Liebman.
http://www.davidliebman.com/Feature_Articles/practice1.htm

Art Tatum, one of the greatest pianists ever, (according to Rachmaninoff, and Horowitz), gleaned much of his style from Fats Waller - his idol.

Most of the impressionist painters spent much of their time copying each other - each has their own style.

Where would music be if Bach had not set the stage for so many other players/composers? Chopin's style was often copied, and in fact, if I recall correctly, Schumann named a piece after him, in his style.

Mozart was heavily influenced by other composers' style and he influenced the style of many others, including Beethoven.

Not sure who insists copying is bad. It is a very powerful learning method (technically and stylistically) and a great springboard, don't you think?

Glen

Gyro has been denigrating the idea of copying other players in order to learn jazz. He's a contrarian to an almost absurd degree. I'm beginning to wonder if he's a sock puppet and the whole thing is a put on.

HooDoo,

What bothers me the most is that these people don't play jazz themselves, and yet they have the audacity to tell others people what learning jazz is supposed to be like. They usually rant about how jazz is dead and how there are only 'imitators', and yet they can't name any of the newer jazz pianists around right now.

I don't mind the ignorance because jazz is not marketed very well, and its hard to find out about all the new players. And I do agree that there is too much theory and not enough ear in jazz education. But I do mind people making all these outrageous claims based on ignorance.

People like gyro are dissing all the jazz students/pros who spend 1000's of hours perfecting their craft. We are not 'lame imitators', we transcribe and do all these hard work because we care about the music and want to develop.

It's a tough life. I talked to this trumpet player who used to go on tour with a famous big band. They would travel on a 5-8hrs a day and play a show for 2-3 hrs. By then it would be like midnight, and most guys would either go to sleep or go drinking.. He talked about how he felt the need to develop, and how he stayed up practicing till early in the morning. These guys are truly dedicated people.. I don't have the heart to call them 'lame imitator' or anything like that.

Wow, it looks like I stepped into a beehive. I thought my comments were pertinent. Sorry to interrupt

Glen

One of the wonderful aspects of jazz is the great reverence jazz musicians hold for their predecessors. The great artists, from Louis Armstrong to Miles Davis to today's greats always speak of the great debt they owe those who they studied and who influenced their development. Although I'm just an amateur, I feel like I'm joining the chain of history in a small way when I learn a lick or a solo one of the great genuises of the past recorded. Last night at a gig I started my solo in So What by playing the first couple of measures of Miles' solo, and then went off in my own direction, but I get amazing inspriation just playing a few of his notes.

Inlanding,

Oh no, the comment was not directed at you!! I am sorry if I gave you that impression. Your comments are pertinent, and I do appreciate your feedback

Etcetra,

I completely agree with your comments. Most musicians seem to hold those who influenced them in very high regard. Didn't Mozart say he owed a great debt to Haydn?

Here's an article about improvising from Bob Amram who is an accomplished tenor sax player.

He basically says that imitation is a natural phase in one's development, but it's important to move beyond that. Clark Terry put it this way "Imitate, Assimilate, Innovate"

Amram goes on to talk about his approach to transcription. He says he's never studied a transcribed solo in his life, thinks it's counterproductive, and recommends listening and getting a general idea of the playing that way.

I don't necessarily agree with that, but it just shows there are different and sometimes contradictory approaches. You just have to find the one that works for you. Lennie Tristano had his students sing Charlie Parker solos from memory as well as playing it on their instrument. My teacher will focus on particular areas of a transcription and use that to come up with his own ideas from it.

And pop great pianist Roger Williams used to study jazz with the late Lennie Tristano and I read he used to take Art Tatum records 33's, put them on the turntable, slow it down and learn some of Art's licks and riffs. He would drop the needle on the record over and over, probably ruined the records and needle until he figured out the notes bar by bar. But does Roger Williams sound like Lennie Tristano or Art Tatum, I don't think so. He slowed down Art Tatum riffs and runs to learn some of the language to filter into his own style. Just think of all the transcribing software and slow down boxes out now we have access to.

Bill Evans said he learned every Bud Powell lick that he could and Nat king Cole's riffs also to get the jazz "language" down.

Jazz guitarist great Pat Martino has a 2 part interview discussing that he transcribed other jazz musicians constantly to learn the language, but he still has his own style and unique sound. He said he didn't write down or notate the transcriptions, but played along with the records.

Unless the jazz student is unwilling to imitate, transcribe solos, play through the Bill Evans and Oscar Peterson books, study other transcribed jazz solos, I don't see how anyone who aspires to be a good jazz player can evolve or develop a jazz style and improvisational skill. Oscar Peterson could play like Tatum if he wanted to because he learned what Art was doing, but he didn't want to be a clone and developed his own sound and used what Art taught him to further his knowledge.

This debate is ongoing about imitating other players, but every great jazz player from Bud Powell to Chick, Herbie, Oscar, Pat Martino. Bill Evans, Mike Garson, George Cables, Miles Davis has done their own "imitation" from listening and transcribing solos from players who have inspired and influenced them. And each of these players sound different from each other, not clones of others. just my $$

katt

Yea I do agree that everyone is different about transcribing. I remember talking to a sax player who is a friend of kenny garrett. Kenny told him that he doesn't transcribe. He later found what kenny meant was that he didn't write transcriptions down on paper, her learned all of it by ear without writing any of it down.

Sometimes I transcribe the entire solo, sometimes I pick couple of ideas up. Sometimes I learn to play them without writing any of them down... there are so many different ways to do it.

I think the innovation part comes out naturally from your studies. I do come up with new lines, and ideas, and when I started writing music, i realized I had my own music/voice going, and I never really thought about it. You discover just how much you have in you through practice, and you learn to start trusting in it.

It seems like some people are basing their conclusion on ignorance and cliche, and they even use them as an excuse not to do the actual work. I've heard some people say, "you shouldn't practice, it should come out naturally".. or "forget the metronome, just feel the rhythm".. stuff like that. I was even called names in one thread when I mentioned imitating as an important part of learning.

Very interesting.

A jazz group I have been playing with gave me 2 charts of tunes they wanted to do, Benny Golson's "Along Came Betty" and Wayne Shorter's Children of The Night." If anyone here has tried playing these tunes and soloing on them, you know what I mean about the challenge to improvise a cool sounding solo through those changes/ They also wanted to do 'Speak Low", so I got CDs of McCoy Tyner and Pete Jolly's arrangements of the tune and did some transcribing. The leader asked me to get a McCoy feel on the tune, so that's what I'm doing daily, learning a bar of his solo and voicings to put a fresh approach on the sound.

The first thing I did was learn the changes and memorize the melody. Then I attempted soloing on them and I wasn't hearing anything that satisfied me. So I found a CD with the Jon Mayer trio that included their version of Along Came Betty and heard what Jon was playing on the changes. So I started transcribing a few bars and then my own path took on a new journey of ideas. I needed to "imitate" or copy a few of Jon's ideas to get a starting point and now I'm getting some ideas flowing on the tune. I found the original Children of The Night arrangement by Art Blakey with Wayne and Freddie Hubbard and Cedar Walton on piano. Again, I transcribed a few bars and my solos started getting better.

I have no desire to play Jon's or Cedars solos note for note, but just copying a few of their phrases opened up things I never thought of. I recommend learning those 2 tunes to any jazz players who haven't played them, because you will find they don't follow standard II-V patterns found in so many standards like Autumn Leaves or blue Bossa. But they are fun to blow on when you get some ideas flowing from the brain and fingers.

I believe I have grown as a jazz player by doing transcribing and many takedowns of tunes I hear so many musicians play in their own styles and arrangements.

So etcetra and I will continue to defend our point that to grow and improve as jazz pianists, we must do our homework, transcribing, imitating, copying other players solos, voicings and arrangements that inspire and motivate us to be the best players we can be.

And BTW, transcribing is the best study to improve ear training and reading and writing notation. Invaluable skills to learn.

Another important point to remember about transcribing skills, if you are planning to be a pro player and expect to be paid by clients, you will at times be required to learn tunes and arrangements as close to the charts, original versions of arrangements as possible. If a bandleader wants to hear the piano cover standards in a style similar to the famous players and you want the gig, it's imperative to get busy transcribing. Some players write out their transcriptions and takedowns, some learn them by ear and play along with the record, whatever works best for ya, both ways will offer advances in your playing and ear.

katt

katt,

yea that's exactly how I feel about transcribing.. it's just a starting point, a doorway to new possibilities

I was listening to John Clayton talking about his former student Harish Raghavan, who is really making a name for himself. John talked about how Harish learned everything he taught and then decided to throw all that out of the window. John wasn't bitter about it at all, in fact he was very excited about what harish was doing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-zGrV8pmUE

So as a student we imitate to learn stuff, but it does not have to define you.. you can toss all that out the window if you feel like its no longer necessary. But it does make a difference to pay your dues first before you do that and go for your own thing.

Etcetra, that's the way to go, no doubt, take down what you can use or don't use, but it fills the vocabulary in our playing. I'll be doing some transcribing today for a gig coming up soon of tunes and the versions they want to do.

katt

I admit, I'm not very good at piano improv. Sloooowly improving. But I used to play a lot of guitar, and loved to improvise. The zone was my second home, used to fall into a trance and at the end see the cord tangled about my feet because I'd been pivoting in circles the whole time.

I was still quite the rookie, don't get me wrong, but I have done some work into improv and there's no question in my mind that style is something that happens by itself. When improv is going well, it's a flow of ideas expressing through whatever skills we've acquired. I think the pursuit of 'an original style' is misguided. I would rather pursue 'good music' and style will take care of itself. Style doesn't start and stop at the instrument, it's present in everything we do. One way or another, our particular temperament will express itself. By the time we've put in enough work to make the music good, the style is already there.

Imitation is the most direct way to learn. Even my job - when I didn't know anything I aped the more experienced guys. Only after I had their methods down did it make sense to start experimenting with new ways of doing it. Whenever I train rookies, I'm glad to see them doing things in their own way ONLY if it's better or equal to my way (in results). In some efforts to reinvent the wheel, all that comes out is a triangle that doesn't move very well.

I guess there's one assumption underlying all this: that there's such a thing as quality in music. Often we see the arguement that everything is subjective in art, which I suspect is usually an expedient to the murky business of trying to describe what makes art good or bad... Though I've also seen people take it very literally, and I suspect is the foundation of much crappy concept art (where they've thrown out the whole idea of craftsmanship). In some cases I don't think the notion of 'everything subjective' is as much an ideal as it is an excuse.

I guess I'll wrap up this rant now

1RC,

Excellent post!!

I agree.. For me style was something I "discovered" when I started writing my own music. I realized that I had music that was mine and nobody else's, and it was quite a revealation.

It's true that great artists do have their own voice, and sometimes it's important that you find out what it is. but it only comes out after years of shedding. I think the important thing is to trust in it when you notice it, and keep on going.. and at the same time you shouldn't be too preoccupied with it, it should emerge on its own when you are ready.

Great artists found their voice because they spent years studying their craft and nurturing their talent. That's why their words carry a lot of weight.

Thanks

On a related note, I've been giving guitar lessons to my 14yr old cousin, it sure is fun to watch him progress! and today he told me he's more interested in learning chords and scales than other peoples music. I'm very pleased that he's already interested in learning to improvise!

Thinking back on my path of improvising on guitar, it could be thought of as being intimately related to technique, and I often got my ideas from music theory. For the longest time it was 'noodling' as fast as possible, heh. Bit by bit I became aware of ways to put meaning to the noodling, give it shape, a climax, play with thematic ideas, awareness of how a melody starts and ends and relates to the harmony... And I suppose what evolves into a style is simply what methods we come to favor.