Talk:Musical improvisation

Cleanup

The article needs to be cleaned up after recent edits and added headings (when it was a section of Improvisation). Notice that under the jazz improv section there is information about classical music. Hyacinth 02:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Its now better. The lead still needs work. Hyacinth 22:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my edit conflicted with yours. I'll take a look at the differences later and try to reconcile them. Outriggr 23:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. Perhaps in the future you could reconcile your edits before making them rather than undoing someone else's work? Hyacinth 23:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I will, or likely abort my edits altogether if the other user's change is substantial (I couldn't the extent of your changes, and I was wanting to get off the computer). That's the first time I've encountered this scenario on Wikipedia. I did say I would fix it, and would have, had you not done so already. My original edit may have been an imposition to you, and for that I apologize, but it was not, as you described it in the log, "counterproductive". Peace out. Outriggr 02:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

See Help:Edit conflict for more information. Hyacinth 02:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't notice a second box with my edit, which this helpfile says will show up. Will look for it next time. Outriggr 02:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't yet realize there had been an edit conflict when I wrote the edit summary, I thought you had actually undone my changes rather than edited over them. Hyacinth 03:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Popular improvisation

I'd like to make some edits to the popular music section, namely the pigeonholing of popular improv into the pentatonic scale as is stated in this article. If anything it's the blues scale that is mostly relied on but saying this alone would be too compact an explanation. I'm also adding parts about how one of the major tenets of jazz is improvisation. --Theloniouszen 20:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, my corrections got a lot longer than expected..I just had a lot to say. --Theloniouszen 00:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, since the blues scale is basically the penatonic with an added blue note, there's not very much difference between the two. Would it be safe to assume that they're both equally common? 151.213.230.196 03:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the blues scale and the pentatonic are a note away from each other (blues scale is 1, b3, 4, b5, 5, b7 and pentatonic is 1,2,3,5,6). I think harmonically there is a great distance between the two - the blues scale can be used equally well with major and minor keys and has a certain edge to it from which an entire genre of music has spawned. The pentatonic scale makes me think of either East Asian music or Duane Allman's introduction to "Jessica". If you wanted a scale in jazz that is for the most part wholly major, the Mixolydian is a lot more common, becuase the b7 fits in with the stacked chord nature of jazz harmonics.--Theloniouszen 06:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, any scale consisting of 5 notes can be called pentatonic. Pax:Vobiscum 14:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

Third paragraph of the section titled "Western Classical Music"

Throughout the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic periods, improvisation was a highly valued skill. J.S. Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, and many other famous composers and musicians were known especially for their improvisational skills. Many classical scores contained sections for improvisation, such as the cadenza in concertos. The preludes to some keyboard suites by Bach and Handel, for example, consisted solely of a progression of chords. The performers used these as the basis for their improvisation.

1. 4 on the list

http://www.jazclass.aust.com/articles/impro1.htm

Many classical scores contained sections for improvisation. The preludes to keyboard suites by Bach and Handel for example consisted solely of a progression of chords. The performers used these as basis for their improvisation (just like in Jazz). In the scores of to day most of these progressions have been translated into full music notations by various editors.

Clearly, this bit was copied. The web page indicates that the material is copyrighted. This section needs a rewrite, or citation.

Thanks very much for showing us this. This was an older part of the article. I did not write it. Funny, that I developed that idea later in the article more fully, without remembering its earlier mention, and I had not checked any of the first material for plagiarism. Sincerely, Chris G. Oct. 12th 68.14.108.62 18:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

possible sub-heading article: "Personal Improvisation"

It seems to me there is an interesting area of improvisation which has been neglected by this article. There are a large number of individuals who pursue what could be called "Personal Improvisation" where the individual creates music on the spot which may derive from one or more idioms, or where the individual creates a new idiom as well as deriving from existing ones. The difference between Personal Improvisation and conventional forms of improvisation such as Jazz and (until the late 19th century) Western classical improvisation is that it doesn't necessarily take direct influence from particular melodies, chord progressions, rhythms or structures of any kind, yet it usually has a familiar sound. The way in which personal improvisation is pursued varies greatly from individual to individual. Some may play in a "new age" style, some may play in a blues or jazz style, some may play in a modern style, some may play in a baroque style, or any combination of any of these styles or a new style.

One could almost say personal improvisation is "idiomatic free improvisation," in that it doesn't follow any rules, but it has the freedom to IMPORT rules or create new ones.

Some possible links to articles that support this suggestion:

http://ericbarnhill.wordpress.com/facts-about-improvisation/

William Harris has written a bunch of articles which I think describe "Personal Improvisation" extremely well.

http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/classical.improv.html http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/MusicPapers/PersonalMusic.html http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/MusicPapers/baroque.html

This is also a very good point (Chris G.) Oct. 12th. It sounds like you are talking partly about that classic rock, descending and ascending "I, V, iv" progression that amateur pianists love to play over. It appears also in that movie The Piano. It is something, however, which is only just now beginning to be dated, since early this decade. In a way, I am glad for that--the repetitiveness, and longstandingness of it is overdue for a change, but where we are headed culturally is also uncertain.68.14.108.62 18:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal Improvisation doesn't have much public visibility, but it is a real phenomenon. I think it would be nice even if there were a small blurb about it on wikipedia, so anyone who reads about it might get the idea: "wow, there are normal people out there who love to improvise and don't follow rules but play familiar sounding music? cool! I should try it, too!"

Thoughts? Think this is a good idea? If not, why not? If so, help me find articles/references to support Personal Improvisation. Thanks.

In the part about harmonization you will find earlier I said the major tetrachord could be harmonized "I, vi, I, IV." I meant "I, v, I, IV." But perhaps at the point at which there emerges a new discussion, then it will be apparent that the article is actually being read widely. At this point it seems to be still on the way toward hitting a discussion and possible tagging for original research and excessive length. I am surprised at how long it is lasting without such scrutiny.Cdg1072 15:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Competitions

In section 2.1, Current trends, under Western classical music, I find these words:

There are not yet competitions for this art form, nor is it clear how the different forms will be adjudicated if competitions do arrive.

Wait now. Aren't there competitions in organ improvisation? That topic is noticably lacking from the article, by the way, but at the very least it would falsify the above claim. EldKatt (Talk) 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty much a blunder on my part. Thanks. And I think I know of a way to correct the passage. It should acknowledge that competitions for organ improvisation exist, but that the world of piano competition is somehow immune or isolated from it. This is really more like the point I wanted to make. Sorry 68.14.108.62 19:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

How can we make the article account for what goes on in organ improvisation events? I've never attended or heard the music of such a concert, but I wouldn't want the extensive treatment I gave of improvisation to stand in the way of these other things.74.241.72.181 16:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article seems to require expert attention. A few points:

1) My own (limited) knowledge tells me Adorno, for example, ought not be cited as a musical scholar. 2) Much of the article is not cited 3) The Improvisation in popular music section probably needs to be pared -- the way these things go, it will only grow if not cut down a bitEditor437 (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, why should Adorno not be cited as a "musical scholar"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Adorno was not a professional music scholar -- he was a philosopher who took a great deal of interest in aesthetics. He was certainly well-versed in aesthetics, but did not study music per se. Rather, he used music, etc. to develop his own (very difficult to comprehend) aesthetic theory, which is intimately tied up with his political theory. One place I where use of Adorno might be problematic, for example, is where he speaks of the "truth content" of Beethoven's music, a term which to my (amateur) mind sounds more like philosophy than music theory. Perhaps someone versed in music theory can prove me wrong, but I don't think Adorno is a good cite here.Editor437 (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing: Popular music

I just removed a list of uncited, unjustified, unincorporated information that was the only content under the popular music section. This article would be greatly improved by including coverage of the use, meaning, and characteristics of improvisation in popular music. Hyacinth (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I was shocked that popular music does not currently appear in this article. Very few people actually listen to Jazz music, whereas millions--even 100s of millions of people have listened to Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, etc, improvising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.183.167 (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

An effort at reorganization

...can be found here: Musical improvisation/sandbox. I've tried to organize it in a chronological fashion, so the fact the classical stuff comes first instead of jazz (which ought to warrant its own article, IMHO) is not because I'm a classical musician. As per the article itself, all I can say is, wow. There must be at least five papers pasted in there. --Blehfu (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've given it a thorough work-over. If nothing else, I think I managed to stuff each paragraph into its own box, and then organize the boxes. Feedback welcome. --Blehfu (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the sandbox to my userpage and copied it to the main article. I'm wondering if the History and Modern sections should be joined somehow since both pertain specifically to Western music. I felt that the Theory and Aesthetics sections formed a bridge somehow between these two sections, so I've kept them separate for now. Needless to say, any copy on non-Western improvisation is sorely needed. Where's them experts? --Blehfu (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization of the Introduction

Wordiness: "making music while it is being performed." means making music while music is made. Performance may require an audience, but improvisation does not. IMHO "making music" is sufficient.

The introduction speaks about associations with particular genres. I suggest that this should appear later in the article and that something more general should appear here.

Analogies are often incomplete, because they do not describe the phenomenon to be explained, and seldom useful to understand a concept.

Based on these three comments, here is my suggestion for a rewrite of the introduction:

Musical improvisation is the spontaneous making and creating of music in the moment, with little or no aid from prepared musical ideas. Musical ideas in improvisation are largely spontaneous and are to different degrees independent of prepared musical ideas such as scores, chord sequences and memorized melodies. Improvisation is generally considered a skill characteristic to many musical genres and is encountered in both traditional and contemporary music around the world.

Any comments appreciated.

Ostracon (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Be bold. Do it. I think general examples could be included in the introduction, but I think it's on the right track. --Blehfu (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at my recent post, as I don't wish to make the page worse! I'm new to wikipedia so go easy on me. Mrdangui (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to put something along the lines of the following in and would appreciate help with it, since I feel there's no general understanding given to musical improvisation:

To consider the differences between pre-composed music and improvised music would be part of the definition of music. One physical difference, which can sometimes be externally seen when one improvises, is a trance-like appearance. If the appearance is claimed to be a genuine response to the activity of improvisation, then this would suggest that improvisation is a form of meditation. A connotation of this means that improvisation is potentially just as organized as composed music, rather than a random event. This ties in very closely with the common phrase "feeling the music", which is a common aim amongst blues guitarists for example.Mrdangui (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

References

First, I do not see why "citation needed" markers are needed in the notes 1, 2 and 3 to Gorow. The source is readily available in the References section. Second, in the reference style I use (APA style) page numbers are only refered to when refering to:

- Periodical publications
- Antologies
- Quotes
- Certain types of electronical resources

The references to Gorow (2002) paraphrase a monograph I own in real life, thus neither category above applies. Because I do not use verbatim quotes there is no need to provide page numbers, in accordance with APA style.

If editors of this article would like me to change to a different reference style—in order to provide uniformity—please let me know. Ostracon (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should starve all the references for a week, arm them with sharpened talons, then let them loose in a ring. Let the strongest prevail. (Reference baiting?) --Blehfu (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I see a vivid image in front of me, but as a newcomer to wikipedia I regretfully cannot grasp how that that would be accomplished. What did you have in mind? Scrutinizing every reference is a daunting task.

Ostracon (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Doctor Kohl, thanks for the revision (18:25, 16 August 2008).

Ostracon (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome, Ostrocon, for the revision. However, I believe you are wrong about APA not requiring page numbers in book citations. Even though you are not making verbatim quotes, you are claiming particular definitions. If each definition is in fact spread over the entire book, then I would agree that page references are unnecessary, but I doubt very much that this is the case. Whether or not you own a copy of the book is irrelevant, since you are providing the citation for other readers, not just yourself.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A further point: I have just looked at the article again, and I observe that the established citation style is Chicago, not APA. If you look down the list of footnotes, you will see dozens of examples citing books, and page numbers are always given.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(Being currently away from the residence where my library is, I will provide page numbers as soon as I have returned.) I find your reasoning appealing, nevertheless, I can find no support for it in the APA guidelines and being unfamiliar with Chicago style I can only expect to be continuously corrected.

Concerning my previous post on APA style, the relevance of me owning the book or not was for the sake of argument—it is not an electronical source. I am well aware of the purposes why one should provide references.

When considering what necessary information needs to be provided in the current reference (in order to locate the origin of a citation) I assumed that the definition of improvisation will easily be found if the reader used the index, where 'improvisation' appears.

It is possible to argue that proceeding on such a case to case basis is tiresome and perhaps even bureaucratic. However, both 'findable through index' and 'definition' are specific cases. For the purposes of the current article I will adopt to whatever style there is consensus on.

Everybody please consider that—apart from systematic peer review—we are pushing the academic standards envelope here (That is not a bad thing, IMHO.). Compare for example with Scholarpedia, which sometimes lacks in-text references:

Scholarpedia Example

Keep up the good work!

I'm trying to...

Ostracon (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As I promised, page numbers have been provided for Gorow.Ostracon (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Could someone get rid of all these tags? They make the article very hard to read. --↑ɻ⅞θʉɭђɥл₮₴Ṝ 17:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start. A lot of them were unsubstantiated claims amounting to Original Research, and have been deleted.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

More needed on Baroque period?

The coverage of the Baroque period seems a bit thin. Wasn't this the great era of (classical) improvisation? E.g. Bach improvising on a theme suggested by the King of Prussia. 86.178.80.234 (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. What is there is mostly an instruction manual on how to improvise in this style, rather than an account of historical improvisations. Why don't you go ahead and make a start by adding some of this missing material?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Noodling

When I look up noodle it shows noodling as a form of musical improvisation but when I click on this page no definition is found. Should that be added to this page since there is a link to it? Maybe something like " Noodling is the annoying thing some musician's do to piss off everybody else in the room" Just kidding, couldn't resist. --Brian Earl Haines (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant to say you found no mention of the word "noodling" on this page, rather than no definition of improvisation. Fair enough, the word should probably be (briefly) mentioned somewhere. In all seriousness, the definition you suggest would be perfectly acceptable—provided only that you find a reliable source to back it up.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge: Instant Composing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge/delete k kisses 10:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Unwikified orphaned stub. References are myspace pages for the ensembles given as examples, not citations. Hyacinth (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Instant Composing should redirect to Musical improvisation. --Danmuz (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Improvising IS instant composing a lot of the time. It starts the main idea, and then the idea is modified. Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

no objections in a year means it's time for your faithful servant (me) to go ahead and do it. i don't think there's much to merge, really - no sourced material that isn't already covered here. k kisses 09:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pop rock music

Isn't it a little disgraceful to refer to music by Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and and Jimi Hendrix as "pop" music forms? Pop is shorthand for "popular", but "pop rock" and "pop" and "rock" are all different things. Would it be fine to rename this section as "Popular forms of music" or "Pop and rock" or something more suitable and less misleading? Thoughts? Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about "disgraceful", but it did seem rather odd. I have therefore been bold and changed the heading. At the same time, I have removed unsourced material dating back a disgracefully long time, and collected some subjects or subcategories together that were scattered randomly through the final part of the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Globalize

Thunderation! I've been complacently watching this article for a long time now, and it has only just now struck me: is it really the case that improvisation only occurs in "Western" music? I can't believe this is so (especially since I am familiar with improvisational practices in any number of non-Western musics), and so have tagged the article accordingly. Since the large category of "Western" is well covered, I would suggest that corresponding sections on "Eastern" (or "Asian"), "African", and "Australian" traditions be added. Perhaps also "Pacific" or "Polynesian"? What about North/South-American native (i.e., "non-Western") cultures?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with this comment; it was my first thought when reading this article. I am not a ethno-musicologist, I am a geographer and an amateur musician -- but here are some references from my sketchy reading in this area. Christopher Small has several chapters and sections on improvisation in two books (Chapter 10 in Music of the Common Tongue: Survival and Celebration in African-American Music, Wesleyan U. Press, 1998 edition; pp 175 to 180 in Music, Society and Education, Wesleyen U Press, 1996 edition). Small also discussed the social nature of music in his Musicking: the Meanings of Performing and Listening (Wesleyan U Press, 1998). Geoliz (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I shall have a look at these books. However, with reference to that first title, African-American music is already covered to some degree in this article, in the sections on jazz and popular musics. I hope that the other items may deal with some of the world regions I mentioned last February.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)