Simple blues improv

[venik]

I haven't really had any opinions from the public on my improv, I figure this is a decent place to start. I just started learning the art like 6 months ago. I'm looking for objective criticism, as well. Keep in mind this is unedited improv, so be nice! I also do the gregorian scales, but I'm still working on them.

Thanks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwoYHlVkZ34

If you don't like the slow part, it picks up around 3 minutes. And I start using chords.

[venik]

So, is this the wrong venue for this?

Or is everyone just being nice and not telling me it's bad?

[chest]

I listened through the whole 10'12" of your improvisation. Much of it was just alternating between Chord I and Chord VI with occasional patterning in the RH, and with an occasional blues-like cliche in the RH (one particular one appearing several times). As such - speaking just for myself - it didn't hold my interest. I suppose it could be called minimalist, and perhaps that's how you thought about it, but, however it would be described, it didn't really appeal to me - minimalist music can hold listeners' attention; being minimalist doesn't mean it's OK not to keep the listener' interest.

Your YouTube video has a "slide show" running against the music. I ignored that altogether and just listened to the music, because I generally find that visuals can be quite a distraction from music, and because what you invited comments on was the music itself, not how well it worked as an adjunct to the slide show. But perhaps you were actually wanting the music to be regarded as something to go with the slide show? Though, if it really was the music per se that you wanted comments on, I wonder why you didn't just link to a plain audio file, with no visual distractions.


In the description box on your video, you say:

I think the best music is what comes straight from the heart, on the spot. Improvisation.

As it happens, I do like improvised music. But, unfortunately, my experience has been that a lot of improvised music isn't very successful. That includes the improvised music performed by a group that I belong to. Sometimes, but not often, a 30-minute improvisation will be good throughout. Other times (often), there'll be a few magical minutes, and a couple of fairly good parts, all in amongst some rather ordinary music that somehow manages to keep going at a reasonably interesting level while the performers are trying to "catch a wave"; but sometimes there will be several minutes that are really rather dull. I think that many of the people who often listen to improvised music simply recognise that that's the way it is sometimes.

Whatever it is that's good about improvised music, improvising's absolutely not a way to guarantee the creation of a piece of music that's interesting and worth-while throughout. When you've recorded some improvised music, the common sense solution is either to discard a whole improvisation if it's all rather uninspired or to edit the recording.

I feel that, in your linked piece, you've been too willing to hold on to the whole of what you improvised, without standing back and considering whether it's all good and is varied enough to sustain a listener's interest for the duration that you've chosen to present.

[TheRaider]

improv music isn't meant to be recorded for the reasons in the above post.

You can improv and then develop the best parts into songs.

This piece for me was rather boring. Sorry.

[chest]

Originally Posted by TheRaider

improv music isn't meant to be recorded for the reasons in the above post.

Unfortunately, that philosophical stance makes it damn difficult to sell your (empty) CDs.

Originally Posted by TheRaider

You can improv and then develop the best parts into songs.

You can also edit an improv - eg select a 20-min section of good music out of a 40-min improv - and put that on a CD. (BTW, here and in my last post, I'm not referring to songs.)


And do you (TheRaider) stand firmly by those (rigid?) views that you expressed above? - I think it comes across that way, because you seem to have given your opinions as if you were stating facts - a couple of 'IMHO's here and there wouldn't do any harm, perhaps?


Sorry, venik, for drifting OT.

[MPDmike]

I have to agree with chest, because your piece doesn't hold my interest either. I didn't get any sense of where the music was taking me, or what was motivating you in playing it. Even with improvised music I think there should be some structure or interesting development in a piece of over 10 minutes.

I don't believe improvisation in music should give us the freedom to do anything we like - to meander around aimlessly or doodle with sound - unless the idea is to make us feel lost and without any points to anchor ourselves by. Improvisation in jazz allows some freedom, but is still based on rules about what will work and what will not. In flamenco, the traditional rhythms, tunes and harmony may be well-known, but a player can improvise on them and make up something unique, which still fits within the genre. The best improvisation should be so good that it sounds like it had been written that way.

[TheRaider]

Originally Posted by chest

Unfortunately, that philosophical stance makes it damn difficult to sell your (empty) CDs.


You can also edit an improv - eg select a 20-min section of good music out of a 40-min improv - and put that on a CD. (BTW, here and in my last post, I'm not referring to songs.)


And do you (TheRaider) stand firmly by those (rigid?) views that you expressed above? - I think it comes across that way, because you seem to have given your opinions as if you were stating facts - a couple of 'IMHO's here and there wouldn't do any harm, perhaps?

Obviously it my opinion. But I stand by it as a general rule.

I think unedited improv is something which is close to impossible to replicate the feel of the live performance. The result is something that listener just can't get. Ina club/bar it can work.

Releasing improv as actual materal is going to leave you way below what your capable of unless your extrememly lucky.

Basically an average(obivously some will take the time) listener isn't going to have the patience of listening to even 20 seconds of your searching something which sounds great.


Also if you can't tell the difference of it is improv or prepared written song then that would be fine. But that is a standard which extremly hard and rare to attain and would be the exception. (in which case you would have no need to label it improv)

[chest]

With apologies again to venik for continuing this OT discussion in this thread, but I really don't want to let that last post to go without comment ...

Originally Posted by TheRaider

Releasing improv as actual materal is going to leave you way below what your capable of unless your extrememly lucky.

Tell that to any of the groups that only do improvised music!

Originally Posted by TheRaider

Basically an average(obivously some will take the time) listener isn't going to have the patience of listening to even 20 seconds of your searching something which sounds great.

Improv groups' audiences aren't usually made up of average listeners. They'll usually be willing to wait a few minutes for the magic to start happening.

Originally Posted by TheRaider

Also if you can't tell the difference of it is improv or prepared written song then that would be fine. But that is a standard which extremly hard and rare to attain and would be the exception. (in which case you would have no need to label it improv)

TheRaider, you seem to be basing your remarks on a rather narrow definition of improvisation. Again, you're talking about songs - but, as I said above, I'm not. You can't expect conclusions about improvisation in a particular genre to automatically carry over to other genres.

For instance, consider a kind of music that has no regular pulse, no normal rhythmic features, no melody (not merely an absence of key/mode but no conventional use of pitch patterns (either tonal or atonal)), and hence no harmony - music that makes extensive use of many different kinds of sounds as well as the sounds of prepared instruments, improvisations that might last anywhere from 20 to 45 minutes - either with a predetermined structure, or with a structure that emerges "on the fly", and involving (say) three to five performers.

Some of that kind of improvised music would be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to repeat and even harder to notate - sometimes it can even be quite hard to identify who's making what sounds and with what "instruments" (and FX), when you listen to a recording - even if you know exactly what everyone was using. The goal there isn't to use improvisation as a way of getting a musical idea that can be improved - the improvised music is the end product, the raison d'etre of the activity. There are audiences for gigs involving nothing but that kind of improvised music. And there are people who will buy CDs containing recordings of that kind of improvised music - whether edited or not, and whether recorded during a public performances or in a studio.

Trying to make general statements about improvised music, by extrapolating from experience of just one or two genres is like saying that food won't taste right unless it has a round bread base covered with a layer of tomato paste and then a layer of cheese and perhaps one or more other toppings.

[MPDmike]

Originally Posted by chest

Improv groups' audiences aren't usually made up of average listeners. They'll usually be willing to wait a few minutes for the magic to start happening.

Indian raga can seem odd to those who don't know what is going on, but a knowledgeable audience will be patient and wait for the musical development.

[venik]

Thanks for the opinions, guys. Yea, I'm still learning. I only started 6 months ago while I've been playing the piano nearly 16 years. I really wasn't expecting ecstatic reviews, so don't feel harsh.

Originally Posted by chest

I listened through the whole 10'12" of your improvisation. Much of it was just alternating between Chord I and Chord VI with occasional patterning in the RH, and with an occasional blues-like cliche in the RH (one particular one appearing several times). As such - speaking just for myself - it didn't hold my interest. I suppose it could be called minimalist, and perhaps that's how you thought about it, but, however it would be described, it didn't really appeal to me - minimalist music can hold listeners' attention; being minimalist doesn't mean it's OK not to keep the listener' interest.

I believe its the I and the V that I'm alternating between. I would want to know if my ear was off a note ><.

Also should mention this isn't a performance really, it's a practice session that I happened to record. A old friend who lives out of state wanted to hear my improvisation when I told her that I had started to learn. To boot, I haven't really even tried to perform. I'm mostly trying to learn my ear, fingers, and perfecting the scales. The blues scale is not really anything I'm interested in performing/perfecting, but I recorded it because it is the simplest to improvise on, and my gregorian improv involves way more stumbling and experimenting atm.

Your YouTube video has a "slide show" running against the music. I ignored that altogether and just listened to the music, because I generally find that visuals can be quite a distraction from music, and because what you invited comments on was the music itself, not how well it worked as an adjunct to the slide show. But perhaps you were actually wanting the music to be regarded as something to go with the slide show? Though, if it really was the music per se that you wanted comments on, I wonder why you didn't just link to a plain audio file, with no visual distractions.

Well, I needed a video to add on to in order to post it to youtube. So I gathered some pictures that I felt all fit the mood. I feel it gives your mind a place to go where the improv is sub-par. I liked it alot more with the video, and/or a reflecting mind.

Also, I think there are some musical aspects in improv that mainstream music leaves out of the picture, atleast from my perspective. The beauty of improvisation isn't the mastery of the motive that you come up with...But it's the creation of the motive. I think modern music has lost touch with that part of music. All jazz used to be improv, which is largely what our music today is rooted in. Most music these days, rather than showing 10-20 transitioning motives, they take one motive and attempt to perfect it. So really, they have very different objectives, and as such I don't think it's fair they be compared by each other's standards. So really, IMO, the only reason modern music is unimprovised is by design, not by lack of genius. I think a good comparison would be the film industry. In film, the most popular film is the one with the most eye candy, and shallow plot. With 95% of the same fan base why would music be any different? Perhaps we have different interests, and thus what holds my interest does not hold yours. I really liked avatar, but it doesn't look like a very fun movie to be producing

That's not to say my recording isn't crap though, it most definitely is, lol. You really gave me the review I was looking for. Most of who's heard it was giving me good reviews, and unsolicited. I figure too much positive feedback will stall my progress and leave me lost. I was not actually expecting any positive feedback period.

I guess there really is no point in responding to the other posts as I address all my responses here. Thanks again everyone for the feedback, much appreciated. And np on taking the thread OT, take the thread where ever it takes us.