To what extent is recorded/composed music mentally or physically improvised?

lol

wot Teh Dehumanator said

Composition and improvisation are functions of creating music, rather than consuming it, so maybe this thread proposal would do better on I Make Music.

maybe this thread proposal would do better on I Make Music.

y'know, i actually thought this to myself on the plane journey away from home

Where'dya go then?

in all seriousness, writing music for me seems much less like conscious effort or improvisation and more like tunes just popping into my head from the ether (which is obv. informed and filtered by my musical history and biases)

But, Curtis, how do you take the tune and turn it into a song? Surely you don't just loop it for three minutes. There must be some progression. Is this progression improvised, would you say, does it come from a selection of different improvisations, or does it follow a repeatable formula?

(Cyprus, to see the grandparents, if you're asking!)

a little bit of each I suppose

I play piano all the time when I write, just wandering, things come out, I guess it's improvisation. However, that kind of thing happens most when I don't have a concrete set of ideas to work with. After I've got something I like, the actual act of composition is much closer to conscious construction than improvisation. I guess it's like a kind of research for me -- when I have nothing, I kind of grope blindly, going on nothing by inspiration and instinct. As things come into focus, and I have some ideas I like, then the work becomes focused in a different way, and I'm trying to come up with things that work with what I already have.

A large part of improvisation is based around established and practised principles, often making it easier or less creative than composition. This is why one large reefer plus six beers per musician can make for a wacky 12 minute run through Mr Greengenes while 3 cups of coffee and half a pack of smokes might help you compose, like, 4 bars of music.

Usually I'll play around until something I play makes me divine something bigger from the heavens, then I'll play that over and over until I divine something else from the heavens to follow, and so on. But I make bad music.

I shall implement my long-held theory that musical composition is a two-part process: the idea and the execution.

Is the idea at all improvised? Or is it just an ideal, a set musical goal around which the execution can play? Can the idea be reconfigured during composition? Or must it remain static?

The execution has scope for improvisation, yes, but to fit the idea best, surely the improvisations must be maximised and then culled until the best path is chosen? Of course, you might disagree and say that whatever comes first comes naturally, and comes best.

(My personal belief is that the 'idea' frequently consists of only a few notes and an arbitrary progression, and will therefore be subject to frequent changes.)

The idea can definetly (inevitably?) be "improvised", meaning changed and customised as it is refined. But this is not what is generally refered to as "improvisation" in music: essentially a perfomance technique executed within an agreed idiom or genre usually with established techniques and styles.

That kind of improvisation bores me to tears. I'm talking about the composition of music, how readily it springs from one's imagination, and most importantly how intact the initial conjurings are allowed to stay.

Old jazz men say improvisation is composition speeded up.

Well, they were really talented. I mean the sort of composition that requires you put the instrument down, pick it up again, put another layer on, pick up another instrument, debate with your bandmates over the piece's direction, in short construct a piece of definitive recorded art. Good luck to those who claim they can vault the breadth of musical progression in one take with one instrument, but that ain't what I'm after.

This question makes very little sense to me, and makes me angry.

Well, it doesn't make much sense in its present form, I agree. It's the nugget of an idea I've been having, and half the battle is expressing this idea correctly. I'm basically trying to work out how much the conception of a piece of music relies upon flights of fancy.

The problem with this line of questioning is that most of the musicians I've talked to about it (including myself) honestly don't have any idea how the creative process works.

(Some people actively view it as a mysterious thing that will disappear or cease to function if they examine it too closely.)

My own experience is that songs, the really good ones, arrive completely whole, like I'm hearing it on a radio, and all I have to do is write it down. There's really not much in the way of improvisation as you speak of it, at all. In your words, the "initial conjurings" stay almost totally intact. I might add a bit of colour, but the thing is pretty much there.

If I have to sketch and arrange and improvise and dick about with something, generally, it's not as good as the pure things that pop in fully formed. But that could have a lot to do with the kind of music that I write, and my experience as writing as a sole composer, not really collaborating. Other writers' mileage may vary.

^^ otm

I think the biggest problem is that it's an unanswerable question. I mean, for me, it's a grueling and irritating bang my head against the desk grind, but it certainly doesn't feel improvisational in nature. For Kate, it appears to be one of those "out of the ether" sort of things, and I know plenty of bands that do write organically, often from "jamming" (ugh.)

It's a bit like asking "How do visual artists make art?" and expecting any sort of coherent response.

Visual artists have a philosophical, visual, or musical ideal in their heads, and seek to express it through tones and shades of colours from their palette? Do visual artists attempt to represent directly the image within their heads, or do they 'improvise', play around with their initial concept? The principle remains the same.

Visual art for me "happens" the same way. I get a mental image, usually quite formed, and strive to get it on paper the way I visualise it.

I think it's a question about the nature of the individual artist (as JJ points out) rather than about the artform.

Louis will not be satisfied until he figures out how "Girls & Boys" was written

What I'm saying is that if you're trying to find some general truth about this, it isn't there. If you're looking for specific "This is what I do" answers, you'll get those, but trying to find a consistency within the creative process is impossible.

xpost haha!

I think it's a question about the nature of the individual artist (as JJ points out) rather than about the artform.

Indeed, hence 'To what extent?'. Who does, who doesn't? Which sorts of musical end are more conducive to improvisation? Progressive rock, for instance. Are the time-signature changes and contrasting sections (in individual cases) imagined as a single entity, or striven towards through a constantly refining process?

"This is what I do" answers will be very helpful! It's what I'm after. Then when the research is complete I shall piece together a holistic puzzle, and all will be known... ;-)

I might as well mention that it depends on what I'm writing too. If I'm scoring out a string part in Finale, it's mostly sheer drudgery, note by note stuff. If I'm writing something for guitar/bass/what have you, it's much closer to improvisation.

Louis, do you play an instrument/write music?

"jamming" (ugh.)

tsk. This killjoy post-punk generation with their fear of jamming. For one thing it's a gratifying and fun thing to do while drunk. I suppose you don't like yoyos, bicycles or sandcastles either?

DAMON: We need to write a disco-track about Balearic revellers. It is my vision and will catapult us to pop stardom.

GRAHAM: So I won't be needed then?

DAMON: Just play a few chords here and there, the odd squealing riff, but yeah, stay out the way, this is MY baby. *unveils synth, switches drum-machine on*

DAVID: So I really won't be needed, then?

DAMON: No. *works out neat chord-progression, then plays staccato tune to beat of drum-machine, singing nonsense lyrics about Club Med as he does so*

ALEX: *burbles along in his oh-so-raunchy manner, just like he always does*

GRAHAM: I've had it with you guys, I quit.

WORST SLASH FIC EVER.

As for jamming, I just don't personally enjoy it, but it works for other people, so good on them.

John, I play a bit of bass, but my main writing/instrumental leanings are manifested in my imagination. Using my teeth as a percussive backdrop (I'm very, very proficient at this, no laughing at the back) I've actually worked out quite a few well-formed songs/song-structures. I'm currently searching for a means to put them down, concretise them. I'll probably need some permanent bandmates. I'm not lying when I say I've conceptualised entire albums in my head (my debut record sits up there, brilliant and unrealised, in near-totality).

(as for the post-punk aspect, I think my disinterest in jamming comes from being a classically trained violinist.)

I'm a classically trained pianist but it doesn't stop me. In fact it helps.

for me and my band, it's all pretty much out of jamming. usually my hand will just do something play some little thing, and then the drummer starts playing a beat and the guitar player starts figuring out how to do something over it (we usually write more from basslines or drumbeats first and guitar last)...

then after the riff is established we start trying to think of ways to have a second or third or fourth part...hopefully it comes together easily...then we establish the basic patterns of how many times we repeat each riff in what order...then after that our singer gets a tape and writes vocals...

but we never write anything down, i can't even read music or "compose".

i guess it's probably not that different than like how rappers work, the way we do it actually.

xpost woah john i didn't know that! that's cool! stacy (from unbelievable jolly machine my old band) had a masters in classical double bass and played in the U of M orchestra, i wonder if you know him?

(The totality is generally of concept, the ideas and progressions behind each individual piece, rather than execution, although most songs at least have tunes and some are pretty much complete. I spend inordinate amounts of time imagining these songs' fruition.)

Matt's 'out of chaos' approach is one that I frequently use in my mental compositions, although I do prefer it when some genius hook simply materialises.

Instrumental proficiency is something I have absolutely nothing against, btw.

xxxpost I gotta admit, the violin isn't a great instrument for jams. Folky pubs in Glasgow commonly have a "no fiddles" rule since they tend to take over somewhat.

Actually, Alex talks quite a bit about how Blur function as a creative unit in his book. I mean, Damon would love to go on like it's just him and his notebook and he is the creative genius, but really, it seemed more like it was some kind of magic collaborative process that happened when the four of them got in a studio together.

xpost to Matt: I don't think I do, I wasn't playing much anymore by the time I went to the U.

I still think that part of the confusion here is that the loose definition of improvisation can cover all sorts of ground. Often, I'll spend a bunch of time dragging a note up and down in Finale, hoping that an interval I'm not thinking of will spark something for me (the wonders of writers block), but I don't think of that as improvisation. Also, when in the amalgamation phase of putting together a full piece of music, the transitions tend to come via experimentation, but that doesn't feel like improvisation either. Depending on how you look at it, though, you could certainly argue that it was.

The thing with the violin for me is that learning as an orchestral player, I didn't even think of the instrument in a improvisational manner. If I'd learned in a Jazz, Folk, or Country Fiddle manner, I think I'd see it much differently, but by the time I started experiencing that sort of playing, the neural pathways were pretty unyielding.

xpost. Chalk up one more similarity between Albarn and McCartney.

Using my teeth as a percussive backdrop (I'm very, very proficient at this, no laughing at the back) I've actually worked out quite a few well-formed songs/song-structures.

-- Just got offed, Wednesday, July 25, 2007 5:57 PM (38 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

PIERRE HENRY & SPOOKY TOOTH

yeah i guess maybe the first riff in a song we do is more "improv", if i'm understanding john right...the next riffs i guess are less so because yeah the idea is that they have to go with the first thing, so at that point it might be 'experimentation' because we're working within the key and tempo parameters (mostly) of the first part.

but fuck this talk, it's all about zoning out in the groove and communing with your spirit animal and tongue kissing the muse. my music only comes from the Oneness.

What about something like The Frogs? I've recorded enough songs with improvised lyrics and/or chord changes to know that's what they must be doing (at least on the albums I've heard), but I assume that when they replay those songs live those things stay the same.

i don't know, we played a show with the frogs once and they were the biggest dicks in the world. fuck those guys.

it def. didn't seem like they were improving at all.

some girl got up onstage and took her shirt off, that was good improv.

lol

right, I think just the songs on Right and Natural or My Daughter are improvised on the album, and they use that first take, but they go and play that as a composition from there on.

A song like Pricks (I Only Play For Money) sounds at the very least re-recorded from one of those takes or even written out beforehand in a traditional way, but I haven't heard the rest of the album.

I said this last time you brought it up, but how could they not be expected to be the biggest dicks in the world just from listening to their albums?

LJ, what exactly do you mean by "physically improvised"?

letting your fingers go where they feel like going I presume

Mentally improvised = the improvisation occurs whilst the composer is considering the piece in his or her mind.

Physically improvised = the improvisation occurs whilst the composer is playing an instrument.

Like I say, very badly phrased at outset. Of more value is the comparison between conceptual and executional improvisations (which roughly equate to mental and physical, but with important clarifications).

If you consider that the concept IS the execution, then I would say you were probably relying heavily upon physical improvisation, for instance.

I don't know, if I'm sitting by myself making up a song I guess I'm technically improvising chord changes and such until I find something I like. I'm not wizard enough to think up an entire song in my head without the guitar in my hands to experiment with the possibilities.

Your concept of mental improvisation sounds a lot like the songwriting process in general to me, LJ.

Yes, but I believe that there will always be minature improvisations in execution which can be used to refine the mentally-composed song.

I mean, I'm sure we'd all love to have songs spring unwarranted and completed into our noggins, but the truth of the matter is that other than base melodies, the examples of that are going to be few and far between.

A lot of modifications are forced by actually getting instruments to reproduce what you're trying to do, especially if you don't play the instrument in question. Plenty of people don't discover the impossibility of their design until someone lets them know that the chord shape they want is unplayable, for instance.

xpost

I'm sure we'd all love to have songs spring unwarranted and completed into our noggins

Yeah, that would rule. That's another thing I was going to say, that sometimes you can hear what the next chord should be in your head and then spend 10 minutes dicking around trying to find exactly the right color.

If the chord chape is unplayable, play half the chord, go back, and play the other half over the top! Or do it on synths. There's always a way round, which is why the increasing breadth of technology is allowing on-the-spot improvised 'speculations' to be added (and then, if unacceptable, deleted) from a piece of music far more easily these days. I don't think entire songs spring into one's noggin, but I think you can conceptualise a musical ideal (or several musical ideals rolled into one piece) and then explore the concept(s) until it(they) either cohere(s) beautifully or lurch(es) from section to section with a thrilling narrative. That, I think, is as fine a manner of songwriting as exists.

http://www.spectrummuse.com/music%20metaphysics/C_scale_ring.jpg

*'from' should be in brackets, 'added' should be followed by 'to'

I sure if you're in fucking Dream Theater or something you know exactly what chord comes next according to all the textbooks you've memorized.

sometimes people get a musical idea in their head while not playing
sometimes people get a musical idea in their head while playing
sometimes musicians play a song the same way every time
sometimes musicians change little things every time
sometimes musicians change a lot every time
sometimes your first idea is a good one
sometimes you have to rewrite and try different shit before you're happy with it

Good luck to those who claim they can vault the breadth of musical progression in one take with one instrument, but that ain't what I'm after.

wtf does this even mean

LJ, this would be a lot easier to discuss if you had the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

I don't think entire songs spring into one's noggin, but I think you can conceptualise a musical ideal (or several musical ideals rolled into one piece) and then explore the concept(s) until it(they) either cohere(s) beautifully or lurch(es) from section to section with a thrilling narrative

This makes me want to go listen to 16 bar gospel tunes.

a thrilling narrative

There isn't a great deal of tolerance shown towards my theory threads. I'm not trying to say anything definitive or concrete (yet), I'm trying to throw a few ideas and beliefs around in the hope that someone (perhaps someone who does know what they're talking about) fastens on and makes a good point. This has happened quite a few times in this thread already!

wtf does this even mean

This means that I don't believe it possible to create what one could describe as an exhaustive musical composition (one that best serves its ideal) merely in one take with one instrument. Argue!

Well I'm sure your definitions of "ideal", "composition", and "exhaustive" are going to be all crazy, but a million great jazz records & solos argue with you.

Hmm. We've been down this cul-de-sac before, and it bears little relation to my original question, being as it was a very personalised aside (that of my reluctance to believe that any piece of music played on one instrument over one take couldn't have been improved by the odd note being changed here and there, or the odd additional instrument/sound being added at appropriate points).

I want to get back onto the 'self-working' debate. Songwriters out there, to what extent does a song spring out of the initial tune, the initial rhythm, and to what extent does further creative work have to be done? Is verse-chorus still the best form for certain musical ideals to take, and if so, does that not debar improvisational refinement?

Also, layers of sound. Are these part of the initial vision, or are they added later in a wave of reactive inspiration?

Songwriters out there, to what extent does a song spring out of the initial tune, the initial rhythm, and to what extent does further creative work have to be done?

Somewhat, also never, also always, also maybe, also maybe not. What part of "no universal rules" do you not understand?

Sorry, my frustration is showing a bit. I sincerely hope that you have a little more scope when you're picking thesis topics.

"English Literature: How do they do that?" by L0u1s J4gg3r.

I'd read it for the roffles

Once again I crash and burn amidst a welter of psychobabble and skip-rope student-theory...let this baby drown, methinks. If there's a parting-shot, it's to say that there are no universal rules, true, but the question wasn't aiming to set rules, it was aiming to determine roughly to what extent, in your experiences, additional improvisation manifested itself in musical composition. I wasn't trying to establish anything big. I only wanted to find out if anyone else had interesting things to say on the topic. Quite a few did.

http://www.craigmarlatt.com/canada/images/symbols_facts&lists/lastpost.gif

I think you'd help yourself by not using the term "improvisation" to describe trying out ideas or messing around while writing tunes.

sometimes when i'm playing bass i go all "blum blomp daddadadaddada dink dunk DONK" and im' all dude that shit sounds tight, you should tab that out bro.

Yeah, John Justen OTM. Sometimes melodies and rhythms come to me while driving, and I'll go home and try to figure out what was in my head. Other times I sit down at the keyboard and noodle around until I happen upon something that sounds interesting and not just tedious or derivative, at which point I may decide to refine further by building this into a traditional song structure. Most of the time in my band, a song will start with a single chord progression or riff (such as something I've come up with on the keyboard by myself), and over the course of months it will be fleshed out so that other sections are added and so that all six of us have parts that fit with each other.

Of course, there's something to be said for music that's the product of a singular vision, especially when we get bogged down in details and argue about a particular drum fill, but since none of us is a musical genius that can come up with a fully formed song off the top of his head, this is the ideal way for us to work, and hopefully, some of our competing instincts ultimately make our music compelling in a different way.

xpost Jordan also OTM. The term "improvisation" seems best suited to performance, not just figuring shit out.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasia_%28music%29