# Are improvisations just lazy compositions?



## wolfgangamadeus (Feb 8, 2014)

I always used to wonder why some composers give their pieces names like Impromptu or Improvisation. If you are writing them down, surely they become a composition? So are these composers just being lazy and making the excuse that they composed it very quickly? Or, conversely, are all written compositions a slow, painstaking and cheating way of improvising? One of the things I like most about improvisations is that they are for one moment in time only. As soon as you try to repeat them or write them down, they become something different. It might be a very good idea to write them out, but to me something from the original improvisation is lost in this process. The improvisation is no longer for that one live and present moment. I'd be interested to get your thoughts on improvisations. As food for thought I recently made a recording of me improvising at the piano. Would it make a difference to how you hear this if I said I wrote it down?


----------



## Ralphus (Nov 13, 2016)

Very pretty. You may not have written it down, but you did record it: "one moment in time" no longer. 

If you did write it down, lots of time signature changes.

I tend to think of the Impromptu as being "in the spirit" of an improvisation, rather than attempting to actually BE a written out one. An Impromptu may have a feeling like it's being improvised, like you can't quite expect what's coming next.

Classical era cadenzas have become like written out improvisations, when modern performers play those written by the composer or other performers.



> Would it make a difference to how you hear this if I said I wrote it down?


I'm not sure. Maybe you yourself would be tempted to tinker with it. An improvisation exists then does no longer. Once written out, we can edit and improve and re-think and second guess etc. Perhaps the expectations are higher on a written out piece because of this?


----------



## wolfgangamadeus (Feb 8, 2014)

Ralphus said:


> You may not have written it down, but you did record it: "one moment in time" no longer.


I agree. This was the first time I've ever recorded an improvisation and something about it changes when you do that.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

For me the question is whether the composition is good or not, laziness doesn't come into the equation. Some composers have composed fully or partially through improvisation, others have used a different approach. 

The ability to improvise could certainly speed up the process and quite possibly take composers into areas more guided by their subconscious minds, so over all I think it is an advantage. 

But to me it is the result that is important, not so much the method used to obtain it.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Improvisations are spontaneous compositions. And there's probably not too many lazy musicians that can pick up and instrument and make good music on the spot.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

> Very pretty. You may not have written it down, but you did record it: "one moment in time" no longer.


I totally agree with Ralphus


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

starthrower said:


> Improvisations are spontaneous compositions. And there's probably not too many lazy musicians that can pick up and instrument and make good music on the spot.


Good point. It takes a special facility, confidence and ability to think on ones feet to improvise well. And, contrary to popular belief, it takes practice - or, at least, practice vastly improves the results. Beethoven was famous for his improvisations, and their quality depended on an absolute command of the instrument rooted in thousands of hours of meticulous practice.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

There's really no thinking involved when you're in the act of improvising. You already know the harmonic structure and key before you start. It has more to do with listening than thinking. And it helps to have some personality and a unique sound if you're going to communicate with the listener. That's why people love Miles, Monk, Bill Evans, Pat Metheny, etc.. When you hear that sound, you don't think about a trumpet, or a piano, or a guitar. You recognize the voice.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

starthrower said:


> There's really no thinking involved when you're in the act of improvising. You already know the harmonic structure and key before you start. It has more to do with listening than thinking. And it helps to have some personality and a unique sound if you're going to communicate with the listener. That's why people love Miles, Monk, Bill Evans, Pat Metheny, etc.. When you hear that sound, you don't think about a trumpet, or a piano, or a guitar. You recognize the voice.


You are working from a very limited concept of improvisation here. Beethoven didn't have a particular harmonic progression or key in mind. He made up his progressions and modulations on the fly. So do most good organists when improvising. Improvisation that isn't just a function of muscle memory (repeating well-worn licks) is a pure and intense form of thought - musical thought. Even in jazz and prog rock there are substantial examples of group improvisation not based on prefab progressions (Weather Report, King Crimson, Soft Machine, Oregon, etc.)


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> You are working from a very limited concept of improvisation here. Beethoven didn't have a particular harmonic progression or key in mind. He made up his progressions and modulations on the fly. So do most good organists when improvising. Improvisation that isn't just a function of muscle memory (repeating well-worn licks) is a pure and intense form of thought - musical thought. Even in jazz and prog rock there are substantial examples of group improvisation not based on prefab progressions (Weather Report, King Crimson, Soft Machine, Oregon, etc.)


I've heard differing opinions on this, but I tend to agree with you. Shutting off thought when playing seems to lead to a lot of rehashing of the same stuff in my experience. (It maybe works ok in simple blues improv that is about it).

But highly advanced musicians process music like a language so they are able to quickly process a lot of possibilities.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> Improvisation that isn't just a function of muscle memory (repeating well-worn licks) is a pure and intense form of thought - musical thought. Even in jazz and prog rock there are substantial examples of group improvisation not based on prefab progressions (Weather Report, King Crimson, Soft Machine, Oregon, etc.)


Yeah, I understand that. Repeating licks is not improvisation. That's why I don't really like guitar solos by Carlos Santana or Al Di Meola. I like Frank Zappa. He doesn't even need a chord progression. Just give him a simple vamp and he can play melody for 10 minutes straight. But I still say there's not a lot of thinking going on during the process. And I enjoy most piano improv, but I hate blues tinklers.

It's not a matter of shutting off thought. It's just impossibleto think that fast. Do you really believe Coltrane or Art Tatum thought about every note in a solo before they played it? The thinking part is done during practice and study.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

starthrower said:


> Yeah, I understand that. Repeating licks is not improvisation. That's why I don't really like guitar solos by Carlos Santana or Al Di Meola. I like Frank Zappa. He doesn't even need a chord progression. Just give him a simple vamp and he can play melody for 10 minutes straight. But I still say there's not a lot of thinking going on during the process. And I enjoy most piano improv, but I hate blues tinklers.
> 
> It's not a matter of shutting off thought. It's just impossibleto think that fast. Do you really believe Coltrane or Art Tatum thought about every note in a solo before they played it? The thinking part is done during practice and study.


I think our disagreement comes down to our definitions of thought. Of course Tatum and Coltrane didn't "think about" every note, any more than someone engaged in a philosophical dispute or recounting an exciting recent event thinks about every word! In both cases the thought is at the level of sentences and paragraphs because ones basic facility with language, musical or verbal, automatically takes care of the grammar, syntax and vocabulary. That command of grammar, syntax, and vocabulary, along with basic mechanics, is what is learned "during practice and study." What this learning accomplishes is to allow a storyteller or soloist to function on the higher plane of sculpting whole phrases and paragraphs while the details seem to take care of themselves. This higher level thought is probably more esoteric and less easily described in music than it is in speech because in music the content can't be expressed verbally - and humans are predominantly verbal creatures. Or, at least, when we think of thought  we almost always have the verbally expressible kind in mind.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I remember Allan Holdsworth saying that whenever he caught himself going on auto-pilot and letting his fingers do the walking, or playing a bluesy phrase, he would stop immediately and try to play something more creative. He's highly revered as one of the great chordal and improvising soloists in modern music. Imitated by many, but never surpassed.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> I think our disagreement comes down to our definitions of thought. Of course Tatum and Coltrane didn't "think about" every note, any more than someone engaged in a philosophical dispute or recounting an exciting recent event thinks about every word! In both cases the thought is at the level of sentences and paragraphs because ones basic facility with language, musical or verbal, automatically takes care of the grammar, syntax and vocabulary. That command of grammar, syntax, and vocabulary, along with basic mechanics, is what is learned "during practice and study." What this learning accomplishes is to allow a storyteller or soloist to function on the higher plane of sculpting whole phrases and paragraphs while the details seem to take care of themselves. .


Very finely articulated. Thanks! And that's what I'm always listening for. Musical lines or sentences that tell a story, as opposed to fragmented licks and phrases. Coltrane I find less satisfying in his late years, because the playing sounds so restless and wordy. He's searching for something, but it can be exhausting to the listener. And Holdsworth is like that when you hear him live. In the studio he can edit himself, and strip away the non-essentials. Occam's Razor, so to speak. Maybe he could benefit from a few bluesy phrases now and then. But we have Scott Henderson for that. And I love his playing to death!


----------



## 19thCSoul (Feb 2, 2017)

This is a fascinating exchange :devil: 

So, after hours of practice and repetition the fundamentals become entrenched (or second nature, as it were) like grammar, syntax and vocabulary and the measure of creativity or conscious musical thought (intent?) is how inventive the overall improvisation is? 

I'm just wondering how far this music-language metaphor can be stretched. 

For example, we can easily distinguish between the words used in an argument (for example, by extracting them and making a word list or those diagrams that show you which words were most commonly used in a given speech) and the essence of the argument (ie. the unique thought, reasoning, questions and conclusions it contains), but where do we draw the line when it comes to music? 

At what point does an arrangement of notes cease to be a fundamental entity and becomes a 'real' creative work? Or is it just that it needs to be an arrangement of notes we haven't heard before? Comparing improvs, eg. Santana vs. Zappa, is a great way to see what different musicians do with similar starting materials - what path do they dare to take? 

Great discussion guys!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Well, there's only 12 notes in music (add sharps & flats) verses thousands of words. For my ears it's the melodic invention that makes it worth listening to. Music is very mysterious because it speaks to us without words.

Funny thing about the Zappa-Santana comparison is that there's a couple of instances where Frank sounded a little like Carlos. And Frank obviously picked up on this while listening back to his concert tapes, because he titled one of the solos, Variations On The Carlos Santana Secret Chord Progression, lol! But the solo was extracted from City Of Tiny Lights, so the title is obviously an afterthought. In an interview, Santana was asked if he had heard the Zappa solo, and he said yeah, I think it's great!

But the significant difference between the two players for me is that Zappa never played the same thing twice. Guys like Santana and Di Meola have their familiar licks and runs that they fall back on. Santana with the rapid ascending tremelo picking to climax a solo, and Di Meola ends his solos in a similar fashion with rapid triplet runs. Zappa never did that stuff. And Jeff Beck is very creative too. He does all that whammy bar stuff that is beyond notation.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

I'm always quite interested in improvisation.
The difference I see between pop improvisers (rock, blues, jazz) and the real rare classical improvisers is the sense of forms in the composition process being used in classical improvisers.
I never heard a pop improvisation showing a development of musical ideas (and this is "basic" using one theme) normally they just play notes and more notes - this gives me the impression I'm always listening the same music in any other jazz improvisation - and in this sense I would say it lacks creativity although it can sounds good for some tastes.

As an improviser myself I'm always "in control" while improvising. After starting to build a theme (good or not) I decide where I go next and there is a lot of time to plan this while playing if you really control your instrument.

Cziffra is an example of instrument control in improvisation 









Although he used also a known piece in this second link

Bach used to improvise fugues and this still can be done if you have the right control on its techniques,

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

If I remember correctly Luciano Berio had a low opinion of jazz because he thought that improvisation it doesn't matter how good you are, you can't do certain things that you're able to do writing on a score.
On the other hand Joe Diorio said "The idea in improvising is to free yourself from left-brain thinking. The left side of the brain wants to know exactly what it’s doing through every step of the process, whereas the right brain is purely intuitive. It loves to take chances and be creative. And when that right brain starts to kick in, then you’ll start to come up with things you never thought of before.”

I think they were both right. Simply put, you can't do improvising everything you can do writing on paper, but at the same time you could improvise things that you could never think of just using the left side of the brain composing at the desk, using the definition of Joe Diorio. Different approaches that lead to different results, in both cases sometimes brilliant sometimes not.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Beethoven was a great improviser and often did improvisations at his recitals and even concerts. In a review in the AMZ, he was called the greatest since Mozart (high praise indeed). He was also a able to repeat his improvisations, note for note, many years later.

In those days the "piano duels" seemed to have always included a requirement for an extended improvisation.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

It is a historical fact that great composers were also great improvisors and much of their finest pieces were borne out of improvisations. So it's not laziness at all but genius creativity. Many of these greats were actually respected as great improvisors rather than as composers, J. S. Bach was such an example. Fact.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

wolfgangamadeus said:


> Are improvisations just lazy compositions?


Yes.



wolfgangamadeus said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqn6NPgkoQE


I enjoyed that. Thank you!



ArtMusic said:


> It is a historical fact that great composers were also great improvisors and much of their finest pieces were borne out of improvisations.


Well most of them. I don't think anybody ever accused Verdi of being a great improviser. (Almost said "Wagner" but his kind of conducting was a kind of improvisation.)


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Magnum Miserium said:


> I don't think anybody ever accused Verdi of being a great improviser. (Almost said "Wagner" but his kind of conducting was a kind of improvisation.)


I don't think anybody ever accused Verdi of being a great composer :lol: just joking.

Verdi, Berlioz and other composers who were not "concert instrument players" probably never dedicated time to play improvisations to others.
But I'm pretty sure most part of Verdi melodies were composed in a piano at his house while improvising something thinking about the text he was going to use... 
not the same with Berlioz, probably...


----------

