Improvising and Various other

[ivoryplayer_amf]

I have a professor of piano that I take lessons from at my University...and the man can't improvise.  I mean he can come up with something, but he even commented that I improvise way better then he could ever hope to.  He has his dotorite!!  Anyway, I just wanted to see how many more were like this! 

if you have questions ask away!

[ted]

Like most things I think it is just a matter of habitually working at it over the years. It can be taught and it doesn't just mysteriously come out of the blue. The trouble is that, aside from jazz studies, it isn't considered an important part of musical education these days, which is a pity. There are signs that this is changing but very slowly. The freedom to spontaneously create music at the instrument seems to me a fundamental joy of playing the piano.

[quantum]

I agree with Ted.  Unfortunately improvising is not part of classical music training. 

I taught myself how to improvise.  At first, naturally I wasn't very good.  I started out just randomly placing my hands on the keys to see if I could get cool sounding chords.  At first, my biggest fear about improvising (as a classically trained pianist) was to play something "wrong."  With classical training we are taught to repeat and refine our music.  Improvising is quite exploratory in nature, and making a mistake or playing something you didn't intend is very much a part of exploration.  In fact such "mistakes" allowed me to expand my improvisation skills.  With improv you don't need to play within set guidelines, but are rather free to go many places. 

I find that a lot of composers I know are comfortable improvising.  There is only so much you can do on paper, and there comes a point where you just doodle on your instrument to find new tunes and sounds. 

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

Improvisation allows the spontaneous freedom. A composition flows by itself and to me, every note must be perfect. However, with improvising, I can drift anywhere I want to and not be afraid of messing up. However I am afraid of playing not what I had in mind however.

[mephisto]

I can improvise(create music on the spot), but I can`t improvise on a theme.

[debussy symbolism]

I can improvise(create music on the spot), but I can`t improvise on a theme.

Maybe because improvising on a theme is more of a compositional method. You have to retain the original melody and know how to fit in the harmony. Theory knowledge helps here, as it does in improvisation over all.

[mephisto]

Maybe because improvising on a theme is more of a compositional method. You have to retain the original melody and know how to fit in the harmony. Theory knowledge helps here, as it does in improvisation over all.

Yes indeed to improvise on a theme is much more difficult. I can of course play my blues. But everybody can if they  know the blues scale. I hope I will get better in the future.

[Derek]

What's really challenging is to spontaneously generate themes AND spontaneously extrapolate upon them.   That's how improvise---I don't sit around thinking up themes, I just play, and I allow themes to form while I am playing.  When something good comes out, I make sure to memorize it (instantly) so I can bring it back later, vary it, move it around to different keys/harmonies etc.

In this sense, for me, I see no real difference between improvisation and composition. They are one and the same for me.

It is definitely not something that I just picked up---I've worked at every skill that has gone into this sort of improv very dilligently over several years. I'm convinced it can be taught---most of my childhood I showed no inclination WHATSOEVER towards music even when I tried a musical instrument.

[ivoryplayer_amf]

What's really challenging is to spontaneously generate themes AND spontaneously extrapolate upon them.   That's how improvise---I don't sit around thinking up themes, I just play, and I allow themes to form while I am playing.  When something good comes out, I make sure to memorize it (instantly) so I can bring it back later, vary it, move it around to different keys/harmonies etc.

In this sense, for me, I see no real difference between improvisation and composition. They are one and the same for me.

It is definitely not something that I just picked up---I've worked at every skill that has gone into this sort of improv very dilligently over several years. I'm convinced it can be taught---most of my childhood I showed no inclination WHATSOEVER towards music even when I tried a musical instrument.

I"m not sure I would call what you are doing improvising.  That to me is actually composing.  Improvising to me suggests that there was something already there, you just improvised to improve it, or in some cases to make it worse.  Now...once you have composed some kindof melody, then what you do after that to the music, to me is improvising, because you are adding or taking away from a piece of music. 

Just my idea.

[Derek]

Improvisation encompasses all these things...it is a very broad term. You can noodle, you can compose, you can embellish...it doesn't have to be on something that exists...etc.

Also I may have miscommunicated. All of this process I Described happens during a single session---I don't "bring a theme back later" like, hours later, I mean MINUTES later WHILE I am improvising. It is all truly spontaneous. Every aspect of the music is created originally on the spot, except my ability to play scales and a vocabulary of chords. That is to say, I have a physical vocabulary of techniques which can all be chopped up harmonically, melodically and rhythmically on the fly.

you said:
"Now...once you have composed some kindof melody,"  <<<this is what I do on the fly. I ALSO add/subtract to these melodies AS WELL as come up with them on the spot. I don't work them out.  It takes a lot of practice to get to that point but it is well worth it, because it feels effortless even though everything you play represents the sum total of effort you put into your playing over a long period of time.


I'm not saying you are wrong---I am saying there is more than one way to look at it---there's nothing wrong at all with working out a melody and THEN embellishing upon it,  but, as I am describing here it is also quite possible to improvise every aspect of your music spontaneously.


Let me describe it another way: Here's the typical split-up most people think of:

composer->performer->listener

I assume you believe improvisation should only be in the "performer" part? 

I'm simply encouraging you to sort of muddy the waters a bit------there's no cosmic law that says that one person can't be the composer, performer, AND listener all at once. They needn't be separate.

One more comment---there is no such thing as wrong in music. That's just my opinion though.

[ivoryplayer_amf]

Improvisation encompasses all these things...it is a very broad term. You can noodle, you can compose, you can embellish...it doesn't have to be on something that exists...etc.

Also I may have miscommunicated. All of this process I Described happens during a single session---I don't "bring a theme back later" like, hours later, I mean MINUTES later WHILE I am improvising. It is all truly spontaneous. Every aspect of the music is created originally on the spot, except my ability to play scales and a vocabulary of chords. That is to say, I have a physical vocabulary of techniques which can all be chopped up harmonically, melodically and rhythmically on the fly.

you said:
"Now...once you have composed some kindof melody,"  <<<this is what I do on the fly. I ALSO add/subtract to these melodies AS WELL as come up with them on the spot. I don't work them out.  It takes a lot of practice to get to that point but it is well worth it, because it feels effortless even though everything you play represents the sum total of effort you put into your playing over a long period of time.


I'm not saying you are wrong---I am saying there is more than one way to look at it---there's nothing wrong at all with working out a melody and THEN embellishing upon it,  but, as I am describing here it is also quite possible to improvise every aspect of your music spontaneously.


Let me describe it another way: Here's the typical split-up most people think of:

composer->performer->listener

I assume you believe improvisation should only be in the "performer" part? 

I'm simply encouraging you to sort of muddy the waters a bit------there's no cosmic law that says that one person can't be the composer, performer, AND listener all at once. They needn't be separate.

One more comment---there is no such thing as wrong in music. That's just my opinion though.

I agree with you now that you have recommunicated these things more clearly, however I dont think that improv should be in the performer part alone.  I just believe that there has got to be a clear line drawn between Composing and Improvising....however I do not have a good suggestion on how that goes.  And I bleieve that the only way something is wrong in music is when the composer didn't have in mind what came out to the point of it becoming a negative attribute to the composition, if tha tmakes sense.

[kriskicksass]

I can improvise passagework for cadenzas (mostly the dreaded cliche diminished 7th chord  ), but I can't improvise an entire piece. If someone gave me a theme to improvise on, I could harmonize it and maybe (if I could remember it long enough) transpose it, but then I'd be sure to lose it forever.

I've been trying to improve my improvisation by randomly breaking into cadenzas as I'm learning Liszt's Un Sospiro. Does anyone think that'll do me any good?

[ted]

If you enjoy breaking out into cadenzas then do it. Liszt obviously enjoyed it and it didn't do his music much harm.