Your views on improvisation.

Here's a thought: All compositions start out as... improvisations.

Improvisation is about our previous experiences, in music and life and whatever, all coming out at once in the improvisation. It's a spontaneous process, and we (that is to say, I, because that's all I know ) enjoy it because of that.

Arctic Wind, you say that improvising is more of a sport than music.....what about slow improvising ?

Oh wow. This guy is just gold, once again.

Here's another: All improvisations end up as compositions.

Whoa, WHAT? That's the most random thing. Improvisations may come from a composition, but I've never heard of a composer writing a piece based on improv.

As for my own views (I regret missing this topic until now): improv and comp are different. They have different contexts, different meanings, different skills to them. I can compose, but I can't improv well. Lots of people can improv but can't write a note. It's been said that "improvisation is composing on the spot" - which I don't believe. I have great respect for both abilities and both aspects of music, but they're certainly different, and one is not better than the other. I could say that x improvised solo is superior to y composition, on the basis that it's done better, or vice versa, but you can't just put one in front of the other. They stand side by side, like any self-respecting band of musicians should.

Whoa, WHAT? That's the most random thing. Improvisations may come from a composition, but I've never heard of a composer writing a piece based on improv.

:huh: Really? ...never?

A quick browse of the 'how do you compose' thread garners these stunning results:

I usually just improvise on the piano/"ghetto keyboard". I don't really turn whole improv sessions into free-form compositions, but when I get something I like, I'll start composing properly and elaborate on the idea.

I do a fair bit of improvisation and stuffing around with chord sequences and melodies. ...I try to piece together those phrases into something resembling a tune.

I get on my keyboard and fiddle around until I come up with something good. I record it in the sequencer. Then I record on top of it with more instruments.

I improvise all my compositions.

:whistling:

I can also tell you that every single one of my pieces has developed out of some sort of improvised idea.

------------------------------------------------------------

As for my own views (I regret missing this topic until now): improv and comp are different. They have different contexts, different meanings, different skills to them. ...It's been said that "improvisation is composing on the spot" - which I don't believe.

I think you just need to expand your concept of what a composition 'is'.

;)

You're right, let me rephrase.

Compositions do generally start as improvisations (for counterexample see species counterpoint), as the poster before your last pointed out. However, "fiddling around on a keyboard" and "saxophone solo on stage" are radically different, and furthermore, that all improvisations end up as compositions is a completely ridiculous statement.

And my concept of a composition is perfectly adequate. Perhaps it's the concept of improvisation here that's skewed.

Compositions do generally start as improvisations ...However, "fiddling around on a keyboard" and "saxophone solo on stage" are radically different...

Fair enough.

...that all improvisations end up as compositions is a completely ridiculous statement.

Just to clarify, let's try: "any serious improvisation intended to be heard as an improvisation is in and of itself a composition".

No?

I might argue that. I will accept that it can only be determined individually, but I consider a composition different from an improvisation that was intended to be used within a song as a solo, over chords, etc., you know. There's a blurred line. But I see

--will edit later have to go!

...I consider a composition different from an improvisation that was intended to be used within a song as a solo, over chords, etc., you know.

I kind of agree. Sometimes solos (jazz, pop, whatnot) are simply parts of a larger overall composition. (BUT, I'd still argue that - for example - Coltrane solos are so well constructed and developed that they are themselves their own compositions...) ;)

However, what I'm mainly talking about are entire pieces that are spontaneously improvised.

Minimalism is improved, is it not? Perhaps not pitches or rhythms, but form, dynamics, etc. are often improvised by the performers, is that right?

I would call them improvisations, Robin. Even classical musicians called some of their works "improvisations" or "studies" or whatnot... I don't call instrument studies full-fledged compositions and improvisations are on the same level (again I'm not saying that one is superior to another). To me, composition must take more time and thought.

I would call them improvisations, Robin. Even classical musicians called some of their works "improvisations" or "studies" or whatnot... I don't call instrument studies full-fledged compositions and improvisations are on the same level (again I'm not saying that one is superior to another). To me, composition must take more time and thought.

Fair enough. ;) We have greatly varying concepts of what is a composition. Personally, I feel improvisations sometimes have considerably MORE time and thought put into them - it's just not in any tangible form. It's the culmination of years of study and practice, experimentation and failure, spiritual and technical exploration... :whistling: Not unlike any other 'composer', we just happen to produce and perform our pieces at the same time.

I'm just coming from a very different angle at this than many of you guys.

---------------

Minimalism is improved, is it not? Perhaps not pitches or rhythms, but form, dynamics, etc. are often improvised by the performers, is that right?

:huh: No...I don't think so.

That is precisely why I call it a sport, the same reason you gave for liking it there.

Sports need not be fast. A more obvious example is bravura improvisation, thats why I chose it.

Do you even know what a sport is :huh:?

Seemingly, by your definition anything is a sport :rolleyes:....explain how slow improvisation, where, perhaps, the the focus is on just melody and expression, is a sport. Explain in a way that can't be described for composition as well, since the ability to play a new melody is very similar to the ability to write a new melody. As robin said, improvisation is just composition and performance at the same time.

Minimalism is improved, is it not? Perhaps not pitches or rhythms, but form, dynamics, etc. are often improvised by the performers, is that right?

You might be thinking of In C by Terry Riley, which is not improvised but aleatoric.

I was actually thinking the pieces where it goes "Play this pattern, repeat as many times as you wish, and then move on the next one". Not all minimalism is like that, of course, but that is a form of improvisation, is it not? Like I said, not pitches and rhythms, those are given to you. But formally, it's different every time.

Well, that would be "In C", for instance. There is of course not a strict line between improvisation and interpretation, but in such cases I wouldn't speak of improvisation. You aren't really free in what you do, you merely have a limited set of options from which to choose. (And in this case, it's not even formally much different every time. Sure, some patterns might last a bit longer some times, but the overall structure of the piece is always the same, unless you -really- go for extremes)

I think improvisation can be useful in so many ways and does take great understanding and skill. The other thing it takes if dedication. If you sit down at your instrument and decided to improvise you have to let go and really commit yourself to the proces through the end.

I've learned much and have been inspired by with material for many of my compositions by improvising (although I haven't done some good improv in a really long time).

Fortuantely for me, I grew up in Pentecostal churches where the musicians were always expected to improvise. Of course some were better than others. There were those who relied on a series of licks and patterns and those that really knew how to improvise from intro to transistions to magnificent ending :P

I feel fortunate to have been able to take from such an experience.

I remember on composition professor of mine was teaching a group composition class and he decided on testing the improv skills of each composer. He of course knew what the result would be for many of the students. They were uncomfortable with the idea and didn't do very well. I also think it was because when the word "improvisation" is used people think of Jazz and feel they can't do an improv.

I think a lot of classical composers forget that so many of the greats had great skills at improvising and was a regular skill to have. Yet, now there are so many that don't appreicate the technique or even look down at it.

When I speak of imporvisation I don't merely mean plunking a few notes of melody and harmony and then being satisfied to begin setting pen to paper. That is a type of improv but that type of experience is not the fullness thereof :P

Therefore if you never gain the full experience time and time again then you never learn how to fully let go and improv.

Besides, improvisation is such a great exercise for the composer's mind. The first movement of my "Gloria Caribana" was all mental improv. I didn't have time improvise on a piano or sketch out material so I started improvising on a thought in my mind and then I went on to notate it.

I personally believe improvisation in some shape or form should be part of any musician's (especially composers) life.

I remember on composition professor of mine was teaching a group composition class and he decided on testing the improv skills of each composer. He of course knew what the result would be for many of the students. They were uncomfortable with the idea and didn't do very well. I also think it was because when the word "improvisation" is used people think of Jazz and feel they can't do an improv.

[...]

I personally believe improvisation in some shape or form should be part of any musician's (especially composers) life.

That made me wonder: How common is compulsory improvisation practice in academic music education (for composers, and for other music students)? We had one year of compulsory group improvisation class (in groups of about four people), which applied to all music students. (There was also an improvisation test at the admission exam for all students, which counted almost nothing though.)

Plus sometimes individual improvisation classes depending on your course of study. One year of improvisation isn't very much of course, but it's better than nothing. How is this handled in other conservatories?

That made me wonder: How common is compulsory improvisation practice in academic music education (for composers, and for other music students)? We had one year of compulsory group improvisation class (in groups of about four people), which applied to all music students. (There was also an improvisation test at the admission exam for all students, which counted almost nothing though.)

Plus sometimes individual improvisation classes depending on your course of study. One year of improvisation isn't very much of course, but it's better than nothing. How is this handled in other conservatories?

I'm not too sure how it is handled in gerneral by music departments and conservatories. But, a few organ and harpsichord players I knew mentioned that learning some level of improvisation was part of the education. How much? I don't know.

For organ and harpsichord players it seems a little obvious as many of them will have to read figured bass lines and play tons o' Baroque. But as for composers I can't really say. All I know is one of my composition teachers felt strongly about composers having the ability and I'm glad he did.

A discussion in the Shoutbox led me to this conclusion: All composers, classical or not, should be introduced to different kinds of improvisation, namely in a jazz style, and in a "let's write a solo piece on the fly" style. Come to think of it, it would be hard to write music on the back of a fly... sorry, I digress. Classical musicians are strict. Classical-style composers are strict. They are all stiff, rigid, and insistent. Jazz musicians don't give a ****, they just want to have fun. Improvisation bars for a big band are the spontaneous parties of music. Classical music is more akin to a planned business presentation.

Composition to me is more like a puzzle, and improv is a game.

Composition: You are given melodies, either from some place or another, or from your head. But either way, these ideas are written down as motifs and themes, and a composer must piece them together, pasting them with different adjunctive materials. Chord voicing and voice leading are well thought out, it is a puzzle to find the most logical way to arrange the harmonies and interweave themes as intricately as necessary.

Improvisation has no predetermined themes or motives... everything is fair game. Most logical patterns, voicings, and harmony are not thought out, they are not planned, they are experimented with. Improvisation is fundamentally an experiment on part of the soloist in question. If an improvisor uses old material or a pre-meditated motif, theme, or melody, it is not an experiment, and therefore is not an improvisation, it becomes an arrangement, the practice of which is a compositional skill. Undoubtedly, in such a context, material will still be improvised, but it is not true improv, especially if certain phrases are learned before performing. Above all, there is no going back to make changes in improvisation as there is in composition.

I have a little piece I play on the piano, I originally improvised on a theme, but ever since, I've used the same chord structures, it is no longer improv, I have taken the time to fine tune some things, I am not experimenting on the spot, I am just intangibly performing a copy-paste proceedure. When I play it today, it is no longer an improvisation.

THAT, is my outlook on improvisation vs. composition. Open to criticism, of course, I have an open mind.

I don't usually ever do these long quote reply crap things.....but on this one I will...

A discussion in the Shoutbox led me to this conclusion: All composers, classical or not, should be introduced to different kinds of improvisation, namely in a jazz style, and in a "let's write a solo piece on the fly" style. Come to think of it, it would be hard to write music on the back of a fly... sorry, I digress. Classical musicians are strict. Classical-style composers are strict. They are all stiff, rigid, and insistent. Jazz musicians don't give a ****, they just want to have fun. Improvisation bars for a big band are the spontaneous parties of music. Classical music is more akin to a planned business presentation.

Sounds to me like you don't know what either a jazz musician or classical musician is :huh:...

Composition to me is more like a puzzle, and improv is a game.

Composition: You are given melodies, either from some place or another, or from your head. But either way, these ideas are written down as motifs and themes, and a composer must piece them together, pasting them with different adjunctive materials. Chord voicing and voice leading are well thought out, it is a puzzle to find the most logical way to arrange the harmonies and interweave themes as intricately as necessary.

Improvisation has no predetermined themes or motives... everything is fair game. Most logical patterns, voicings, and harmony are not thought out, they are not planned, they are experimented with. Improvisation is fundamentally an experiment on part of the soloist in question. If an improvisor uses old material or a pre-meditated motif, theme, or melody, it is not an experiment, and therefore is not an improvisation, it becomes an arrangement, the practice of which is a compositional skill. Undoubtedly, in such a context, material will still be improvised, but it is not true improv, especially if certain phrases are learned before performing. Above all, there is no going back to make changes in improvisation as there is in composition.

You seem to categorize things in a very sharp, pedantic way ....there's a blur between both forms, and all forms of art, really. Composition is not just a logical process, and improvising isn't just a game...We're not trying to build the best building in either composition or improvisation, perfect in its design and build and technique, but trying to create a piece of music. One way is trapped in the moment while the other lives through time, but they're both really similar, and not just normal routine processes.

THAT, is my outlook on improvisation vs. composition. Open to criticism, of course, I have an open mind.

yeah, man, you need some soul :cool:!

:P :laugh:

Sounds to me like you don't know what either a jazz musician or classical musician is :huh:...

Notice the title of the thread. Mind you, it's a good idea to take what I say a little figuratively, not so literally. My points were a little bit of an overstatement, to say the least. Actually, what I said was just an understatement... case in point. 1.) Take with grain NaCl. :happy:

One way is trapped in the moment while the other lives through time...

Daryl Runswick, well known British composer and advocate of improvisational music, wrote an article which describes improvisation as a continuum, which is integral to almost all types of music apart from tape playback. If improvisation is classified as a kind of real-time invention, this can be extended to any form of interpretation (the collapsing of possibilties presented by a musical score: there are hundreds of possible performances, but only one real one, the one that becomes real is chosen by the performer, not the composer). Therefore, all performers, to some extent, improvise.

http://www.btinternet.com/~daryl.runswick/ImproCont.pdf

L.

Hey hey, chill out guys...

Opinions are opinions, and will never be right or wrong.

Now, my opinion is that improvisation is as important as thorough composition.

Think of Bach and Messiaen. Bach was given the famous ricercare theme by Frederick the second to improvise on and play a three voice fugue, and Bach did so (which he later wrote down). He was also asked to improvise a six-voice fugue, which he said he'd need more time to do so.

Messiaen used to improvise quite a lot on the organ. He was really good at it, although later in his life he stopped improvising because he thought that he had so many ideas while improvising that while still improvising he wouldn't remember of the beginning ideas or music he played, so he felt that much of his "inspiration" was wasted during improvisation, as his improvisations turned out to be so long he couldn't remember all of them after he finished.

Most of the orchestral pieces written in the classical era could as well be described as "improvisations" with the orchestra (in one's mind). Also, Debussy's music is a marvel in terms of organisation and composition. It is always very improvisational, and no one can really tell what was going on in his mind when composing his pieces (in terms of harmony and modes etc), as opposed to a Bach piece or a piece by Schoenberg.

You have to differentiate between social exercise, and the scientific art of music.

Why does there have to be a distinction between "life" and "art"? And we also have made this distinction between "low" and "high" art. Art began as an essential part of one's life, but now it seems to have taken a different path.

Furthermore, if you take a look at the experimental composers of the 60's and 70's (mostly in the US, but Stockhausen also wrote pieces with similar content), you'll see that a great deal of their music requires improvisation, or asks for the performers to decide upon various aspects of the music they are playing. So, what is this eventually? Is it improvisation? Is it composition? Is it both? Is there a difference between the two eventually? Should there be?