Improvisation

[benedict]

I do not know how to keep time of the beats when I improvise.

Should I could beats : 1 2 3 4 or even 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 1 ?


Should I tap with one foot or even two feet ?

Should I count bars and how ?

I see a lot in books about chord progressions, even on melodic structure, but I do not know how to keep track of time without using a metronom or an electronic device which I find a bit to mechanical.

Thank you for your suggestions.

Benedict

[88keys]

The best way is to simply incorperate the beats into your improvisation!

Say you want to improvise in 3/4 time? Playing solid waltz-like um-pah-pah chords with your left hand will keep you on the beats.

There are many other ways to set the rythem with the music. Repeated arpeggios for example, or Mozart's "Alberti Bass" (the doodle-doodle accompaniment so common in his sonatas). And to make things really interesting, change the figure you are using frequently (without changing the time signature).

If you are interested in improvising highly syncopated music (like in Jazz), than you'll have to get used to the rythem defined by these patterns. Once you get used to them, you'll find that they are just as helpful to keeping yourself on beat as a simple um-pah is.

And of-course, if you feel that you just can't do without the counting out load, then count. But remember that your ultimate goal is to be able to improvise fluently without the need for such an aide.

[benedict]

:)Thanks a lot 88keys.

One question : for a 4/4 signature, do you do um pah pah pah or um pah um pah.

In fact, I thought of using the left hand to strike chords once or twice per bar.

You suggest striking each time like root and three times the triad or a stride ?

Then it means a complete independance of both hands.

I am sure that improvising could help me play classic works in a more creative way. What do you think ?

[88keys]

You are thinking of the left hand part in a too mechanical way.

Just because the left hand gives the beat, doesn't mean one should neglect the musical 'feel' of the figures that hand is playing.

Whether to play um-pah-um-pah or um-pah-pah-pah, depends on the kind of music you want to create. And sometimes an um-pah rythem will be totally inappropriate... For example, for a fast "airy" passage you'll probably prefer an arpeggio of some kind over the um-pah rythem.

As for how to play an um-pah figure: The "um" is usually a single note (the one in the bass of the chord) and the "pah" is the rest of that chord. As your improvisation skills improve, you'll probably find it more interesting to break this "rule" once in a while for a different feel.

And yes, it does mean independence of both hands in a way. Piano music usually has this property.

And you are right. Improvising certainly can help you classical music better, but you must remember that when playing, say, Beethoven, you are expected NOT to improvise. It is the pianist's job to put the feeling into the music, but it the notes themselves should be played as  the composer have written them.

From experience, I can tell you it is sometimes hard to resist the temptation of improvising when playing classical pieces. But if you want the audience to be happy, this is a temptation you'll have to conquer.

[benedict]

Thank you for your answer.

In fact, I have no audience to conquer, I play for my own pleasure.

I have taken a very bad habit from working with teachers that made me play great pieces without establishing the fundamentals of music : rhythm, harmony, melody and piano : sight reading, control of separate voices and/or hands.

The result is that I cannot play without saying the name of the key. To get rid of it, I would like to say (in my head) either the beats or a onomatopea (don't know if there is such a word in English) like oum pah oum pah or ta ke ti mi ,ta ke ti mi (like the Indians do) or anything else if it gets me rid of the name of the keys.

I study with a method of improvisation by French jazz pianist Martial Solal.

It starts with four beats with the left hand.

I have spent three hours last night (!) trying to create a real rhythmic section. I am absolutely sure by now that rythm is the bases of it all.

Unfortunately, in France, the way rythm is taught is very intellectual, more mathematics than music.

So instead of developing a natural sense of rythm like africans, gypsies..., it sterilized my natural sense of rythm. After all, my heart is very rythmical, so I have it in me.

I like it when I can really exchange with a skilled musician.

In fact, I am learning the first fugue of the Well Tempered Clavier (C major) and I would very much like to have a stable rythmic basis to give unity to this complex counterpoint.

So, the oum pah question is not completely irrelevant.

I am really trying to find a way that makes music available to people who were not lucky enough to benefit from the traditional teaching methods and therefore are like poor souls in the Purgatory, wandering forever in search of music.

Have a nice day.

Benedict