# Improvisation?



## Scum (Jun 16, 2008)

Two questions:

1. What's the point of improvisation? How does it fit into the composition? How does one use improvisation to communicate certain ideas through the music?

2. Could you tell me some classical pieces using improvisation?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

A lot of Baroque music has elements of improvisation - and cadenzas can be improvised.. 

By it's nature, improvisation will always be musically inferior to composition. Of course, artistic spontaneity can be a great joy - and very expressive.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Since all classical music is written, there isn't much that is improvised, which is a good thing, because it isn't intended to be improvisational, though concertos can have a improvisatory feel to them as can sonatas, chamber works like string quartets, piano quintets, etc, but still this is not improvisation, because the notes are being read from a score.

Improvisation is most effective in jazz music where the soloists are given a lot of freedom and it's the rhythm section's job to play in correspondence to the soloist and react to them in a supportive way by complimenting their ideas. Improvisation is the hardest part to playing jazz much because so much of this music relies upon it. The song structures, in jazz, are very loose and almost seem none existent compared to classical music where structure is crucial.

I think it's important to note that composition is one of the great triumphs of music. Improvisation is not really necessary and doesn't constitute good music. There is always the chance a soloist can completely ruin the feel of a composition thus destroying that piece's true intent. In classical music, while there are many different interpretations by a conductor, the music is always the same. It should always be played exactly as it is read, but this of course, doesn't mean that you can't inject your own feelings into your part of the music and make inspired musical statements as you are reading the notes.


----------



## Scum (Jun 16, 2008)

Yes, that was actually the main purpose behind my first question... How does jazz music work when it is based mainly on improvisation?


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Scum said:


> Yes, that was actually the main purpose behind my first question... How does jazz music work when it is based mainly on improvisation?


In jazz, there are chord changes. The soloist has freedom as long as they stay within the key of the song and play in correspondence to the chords. Like if you have static harmony like A flat 6/9, F minor 9th, then D sharp major 9th, it is the soloist's job to solo within this chord structure. They are free to play whatever they want as long as it stays within the structure. Throw in an uptempo swung 4/4 rhythm, a walking bass line, and a pianist or guitarist to play the chords you've got some of the basics of jazz right there.

Of course in freer forms of jazz there is total abandonment of structure, keys, tempos, and even chords like the music of Ornette Coleman, later John Coltrane, John Zorn, and Anthony Braxton for example.

I can't possibly explain to you how it all works. It just does. This is why jazz music is so difficult to teach, because it relies on your own intuition.

The best improvisation is nothing in the world but an elaboration of what has already been said, within that composition. Most soloists develop ideas from the composition's main melody and build around that. There are thousands of different approaches to improvisation. Building on the melody of the song they're playing is just one of them.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I used to think that so called jazz chords -- you know, the complex stacked harmonies like B minor 6 aug 9 or some such -- came into being because improvisors then have more chances of hitting the right note or a note that sort of harmonizes. I know that is not the case, but it does seem reasonable that a music relying on improvisation would have all these complex harmonies. 

That goes along with Thelonius Monk's allegedly saying, "If you make a mistake, do it again." 

I think comparing improvisation with composition is like apples and oranges. They are two totally different artistic endeavors with different goals. I enjoy them both. 

I wish there was a music as improvisatory as jazz that does not rely so heavily on the swing rhythm of jazz which is often not to my liking. A good rock jam almost fits the bill, but not quite.


----------



## LvB (Nov 21, 2008)

Mirror Image said:


> Since all classical music is written, there isn't much that is improvised[....]


Although this is relatively accurate as regards much contemporary performance practice, it is erroneous in the larger picture. Improvisation was an integral part of classical, and particularly Classical, music for a very long time. Figured bass, for example, was never written out but was improvised from the often cryptic indications in the score. Classical concerti all featured cadenzas which were to be improvised on the spot, with the performer's ability being indicated by the taste and balance of their cadenza (hence the need for Beethoven to explicitly order performers of his fifth piano concerto not to make a cadenza). Classical performers were expected to improvise, and some were quite good: Joseph Wollfl, for example, was performing in Mayence when a military band started playing outside the hall; he took up the rhythm and key, and improvised a concerto with band accompaniment. But the peak of Classical improvisation was, of course, Beethoven (wasn't he the peak of just about everything Classical?  ). His improvisations were legendary, as shown in his encounter with his popular contemporary Daniel Steibelt. Steibelt had attended a concert at which a Beethoven work was performed, and the at the next week's concert he showed up with a new display piece based on one of Beethoven's themes, as if to say, 'this is how it's done.' Having heard this, Beethoven got up and walked to the piano, grabbing the violoncello part from Steibelt's piece. He put the part on the piano, _upside down_, and plunked out the resulting theme, and then proceeded to improvise so powerfully that Steibelt left before he was done, and ever after refused invitations to musical gatherings where he knew Beethoven would be.

Nor did improvisation end with the Classical period. Liszt and Rubinstein were both renowned improvisers. Bruckner, when he applied for a position at the Vienna Conservatory, was expected, as part of the process, to improvise on a given theme. The original theme was four bars, but one of the examiners added another four. Bruckner stared at the theme for quite some time, long enough for the judges to start thinking he was overwhelmed by the whole idea, before providing such a complex improvisation, including, as required, a fugue (this on the organ), that one of the judges commented that "He should have examined us."

It may or may not be true that written out pieces are superior, on the whole, to improvised ones (I am inclined to agree that this is generally, though not invariably, the case), but it is certainly not the case that Classical, or even classical, music is always performed from written notes.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

LvB said:


> Bruckner stared at the theme for quite some time, long enough for the judges to start thinking he was overwhelmed by the whole idea, before providing such a complex improvisation, including, as required, a fugue (this on the organ), that one of the judges commented that "He should have examined us."


An improvised fugue? I am turning pale at the very thought!


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2009)

Originally cadenzas were improvised but some musicians didn’t know when to stop others couldn’t improvise so now we have written cadenzas but you are free to improvise or write your own, and in Jazz you do not have to stay in the home key, infact key changes are very, very common.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Scum said:


> Could you tell me some classical pieces using improvisation?


The English composer, *Edmund Rubbra *was interested in improvisatory techniques & used them in some compositions. These include the _Improvisation for Violin and Orchestra, Op. 89_ & the _Improvisations on Virginal Pieces by Giles Farnaby, Op. 50 _. They interesting pieces & are both available on a Naxos CD, which also has his _Violin Concerto_.

(By the way, 'scum' is a pretty in your face/wierd name. How did you think of that?!?!)


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Bach said:


> By it's nature, improvisation will always be musically inferior to composition.


Oooh! That's quite a loaded assertion! The thing to consider is, how much freedom does the composer want to give the performer. Also, if the composer is the performer, how much of the improvisation was thought out, or indeed written before its performance. I'd have thought with a name like "Bach", you of all people would have appreciated the importance of improvisation as a method of composition.

What I dislike is the notion that composers are better musicans than performers. Although this idea may be true in many individual circumstances, it's still too general and infers a strict hierarchy of talent. Improvisation, in my opinion, is a way of breaking this unjust notion by closing the gap between composer and performer.

Yes, there is established music like the Beethoven symphonies that are not meant to be improvised and are at the peak of musical endeavour. There is also much music that must be interpreted and improvised, notions that may strike fear into the hearts of conservative listeners, but for performers, it's all part of the enjoyment of music.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Scum said:


> Could you tell me some classical pieces using improvisation?


Witold *Lutoslawski*, the Polish composer, added in an element of 'chance' into his music. For example, in his _Symphony No. 2_, the instruments play a certain phrase over and over, and if they don't finish their repetitions at a given time, they have to repeat these extended phrases all over again. This means that they don't finish playing all at once, as you'd ecpect in a more conventional classical piece.

Non-European classical composers have also done similar things. For example, Ariel *Ramirez* (_Misa criolla_) & Guido *Hazan* (_Missa luba_) left parts of the score open to improvisation by instrumentalists accompanying the choir/singers in those pieces. This was meant to reflect the musical traditions of Latin American & Africa, respectively.

I think that there have been composers like these, and also *Rubbra* (who I mentioned above), who have played with the idea of 'chance' & improvisation within the context of a classical piece, most of which has been written out in score.


----------



## howlingmadhowie (Mar 26, 2009)

i'd say that improvisation is the most important exercise in the daily practice a musician should do. to improvise well on an instrument, you have to have a mastery of style, theory, sight-singing and technique. some musicians are good enough to give improvisation concerts in various styles. it is always disappointing and telling when a pianist can't sit down and make a reasonable attempt at improvising a sonata in the style of mozart, or an etude in the style of chopin. basically i would say, that if you can't do a reasonable job of improvising a sonata in the style of mozart, you shouldn't be playing any sonatas mozart wrote.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Weston said:


> An improvised fugue? I am turning pale at the very thought!


Bach always used to do that. Quite a few of his fugues must have had their origins in improv - the three-part ricercar from the Musical Offering, for instance.

But not only Bach! Handel prepared an exercise in fugue improv, which can be found in this book:










But improv has been around from time immemorial. Vocal polyphony was frequently improvised, to give a non-instrumental example.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Edward Elgar said:


> Oooh! That's quite a loaded assertion! The thing to consider is, how much freedom does the composer want to give the performer. Also, if the composer is the performer, how much of the improvisation was thought out, or indeed written before its performance. I'd have thought with a name like "Bach", you of all people would have appreciated the importance of improvisation as a method of composition.


I do  Many of my own composition begin their lives as improvisations, but without refinement, improvisations are likely to be structureless.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Like Bach has said, my own compositions as well start off as improvisations. Sometimes I'll have a melody in my head and write it out, but usually I just sit with my guitar and improvise some ideas I'm hearing at that given moment until I hear something that's appealing to me, then after I hear something I like or want to work with, I start the process of developing the idea, then the refinement begins. I write in a largely modal style, so improvisation is very important to me.

I'm a very coloristic guitar player. I'm sometimes more concerned how a certain mood is projected than a structure, which, in turn, would give my compositions a very loose and unpredictable tonality.


----------



## Guest (May 4, 2009)

Improvisation did seem to fade out a bit in classical music of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but it came roaring back in mid-century.

The Wiki article on Derek Bailey (which mentions AMM and Keith Rowe--some seminal improvisers there) is a pretty good place to start, especially for the links at the end.

Much of the newer "art" or "classical" music is improvisatory--a lot of it laptop and electric guitar (often controlling a lot of other electronics, including sound files or wave generators on the laptop).

Two other things, aleatoric (viz. Boulez) and indeterminate (viz. Cage), are often confused with improvisation, but are distinct from it and from each other. (Plenty of online sources for these things, too, some of which do the same confusing, though!!)

Classical improv doesn't sound anything like "jazz," nor do the collectives like AMM or the solo practitioners like Zbigniew Karkowski, though many jazz and rock artists do improv that sounds quite a lot like classical (contemporary) improv. (People from these three areas started hanging out together and playing with each other from quite early on. Sonny Sharrock, Peter Broetzmann, Ornette Coleman, John Zorn, Nurse With Wound, Doctor Nerve, MEV, Christian Marclay, Keith Rowe are all people who are boundary breaking (ignoring) avant musicians.)

Check out the ihatemusic site* for discussions of eai (electroacoustic improvisation). It might be a bit overwhelming at first, but many of the same names keep coming up--that has a nice grounding effect for the situation.

*the only site I've found so far where everyone seems to genuinely love music--even more than bickering with each other!!


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Mirror Image said:


> . . . my own compositions as well start off as improvisations. Sometimes I'll have a melody in my head and write it out, but usually I just sit with my guitar and improvise some ideas I'm hearing at that given moment until I hear something that's appealing to me, then after I hear something I like or want to work with, I start the process of developing the idea, then the refinement begins . . .


That's exactly what I do as well. As a church organist, there are unplanned times during a church service where "fill music" is needed. Since there isn't any time to pick up a book and rummage through its pages to find something to play, I will improvise on the spot. Some creations are retained in my memory and later on I begin the process of composing using a notation software program.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

To assert that compositions nearly always begin life as improvisations (unless you have the genius of Mozart), one could argue that improvisation is a more essential (not better) aspect of music making than the written score. This reminds me of the chicken and egg, you need one in order to create the other, but which came first?!


----------



## mueske (Jan 14, 2009)

Edward Elgar said:


> To assert that compositions nearly always begin life as improvisations (unless you have the genius of Mozart), one could argue that improvisation is a more essential (not better) aspect of music making than the written score. This reminds me of the chicken and egg, you need one in order to create the other, but which came first?!


The egg, if you believe in evolution that is..!


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Edward Elgar said:


> What I dislike is the notion that composers are better musicans than performers. Although this idea may be true in many individual circumstances, it's still too general and infers a strict hierarchy of talent.


Well, it _should_ be true. Composers should have a far wider and indepth knowledge of *all* the instruments, whereas a performer need only know a great deal about his own instrument. A composer ought to be an expert at score reading and instrumental balances and textures. A composer ought to have an expert and encyclopaedic knowledge of musical form, harmony and counterpoint. Whilst a knowledge of all of these things are useful for performers, they're not a _sine qua non_ as they are (or should be) for composers, since for the latter it is active, practical -as opposed to passive- knowledge.


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2009)

It depends what you mean by better, a better instrumentalist, a better reader, a better improviser etc
a composer may have a more detailed knowledge of music theory but be only second rate as a performer and he does not need a comprehensive knowledge of each instrument as history has shown when it takes a performer to show the best way to write for a particular instrument or to show that as written the thing is just about unplayable. amen


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical (Mar 15, 2008)

Bach said:


> A lot of Baroque music has elements of improvisation - and cadenzas can be improvised..
> 
> By it's nature, improvisation will always be musically inferior to composition. Of course, artistic spontaneity can be a great joy - and very expressive.


Unless you are Mozart lol


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Andante said:


> It depends what you mean by better, a better instrumentalist, a better reader, a better improviser etc
> a composer may have a more detailed knowledge of music theory but be only second rate as a performer and he does not need a comprehensive knowledge of each instrument as history has shown when it takes a performer to show the best way to write for a particular instrument or to show that as written the thing is just about unplayable. amen


History has shown?

BTW - it doesn't matter if he's a second rate performer because, in effect, he can perform every instrument in his head! (The composer I mean.)


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2009)

Herzeleide said:


> History has shown?


Yep what immediately sprung to mind was Violin Concertos where the composer needs particular advice, e.g. Brahms-Joachim, Walton-Heifetz, Elgar-Reed there are probably a lot more instances if any one cares to check


> BTW - it doesn't matter if he's a second rate performer because, in effect, he can perform every instrument in his head! (The composer I mean.)


 That is what I said so, at times he/she [hate PC] needs advice from the expert.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

We can't really generalise and say that performers don't know anything about theory or other instruments or that composers can't perform. In reality, an individual musician will study what interests him/her, improving their skills in whatever discipline or disciplines they choose. If a performer of say the piano is interested by the workings of the french horn, they will read up on it and find out it's in the key of F, e.t.c. If a composer is interested in performance they will practice established works or their own works until they can be presented to an audience.

That's the joy of music, there's so much to discover and you can pick and mix what you want to discover. History is littered with examples, some have already been posted. My point is that it is the choice of the individual how much they learn about music, which breaks down the categories of professions in music to make it more free and enjoyable.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Andante said:


> Yep what immediately sprung to mind was Violin Concertos where the composer needs particular advice, e.g. Brahms-Joachim, Walton-Heifetz, Elgar-Reed there are probably a lot more instances if any one cares to check
> 
> That is what I said so, at times he/she [hate PC] needs advice from the expert.


Yes.

The composer needs to know much more about every instrument than any other musician (even conductors) essentially meaning the composer has to be the greater musician.

Anyway this:



Andante said:


> he does not need a comprehensive knowledge of each instrument as history has shown when it takes a performer to show the best way to write for a particular instrument or to show that as written the thing is just about unplayable. amen


Just goes to show that the composer does need a comprehensive knowledge of the instruments, if he doesn't want his music to be messed around with!


----------

