Ontimpr4. On mistakes and improvisation.

Making Sense of Mistakes During Improvisations

Vijay Iyer, in his "Embodied Mind, Situated Cognition, and Expressive Microtiming in African-American Music," discusses some rhythmic effects that Thelonious Monk produces in his performance of the song " I'm Confessin'." In the midst of this analysis he makes the remark that "it is never clear what is "supposed" to happen in improvised music, so it makes little sense to talk about mistakes."

It is important that we appreciate the context within which Iyer makes this claim concerning the senselessness of mistake attributions during an improvised performance.

Here is the paragraph preceding and following where he makes the senselessness of mistake attribution:

Nearly upsetting the regular pulse, Monk takes a chance and chooses to follow through on a melodic idea that momentarily takes him rythmically far afield. But note that the pulse is never lost; Monk leaves out a couple of quarter-note chords in the left hand (possibly due to pitch range overlap with the right hand), but otherwise provides strong and accurate pulse reinforcement in the stride style. The rhythmic underpinning of the left hand compensates for the apparent deviation from regularity.

The question of whether Monk "intended" to play this in exactly this way is a pejorative one, akin to reifying the role of "mistakes" in jazz (as in Walser, 1995). It is never clear what is "supposed" to happen in improvised music, so it makes little sense to talk about mistakes. From the perspective of an improviser, the notion of a mistake is supplanted by the concept of interaction with the structure suggested by the sonic, physical and temporal environment; in other words improvisation privileges embodied cognition. This improvisation-friendly framework allows for the possibility of musical exploration and experimentation within constraints, including impromptu rhythmic variation of the sort described here."

• Is Iyer correct that it makes little sense to talk about mistakes during an improvisation?

• Arguably, he is wrong, generally speaking. For a list of possible types of mistakes, even during an improvisation see Ontimpr3. What is a mistake? as well as List of Types of Musical Mistakes.

• What does Iyer have in mind specifically in this context where he makes the senselessness claim? It seems that his point is that during Monk's improvisatory solo, where he does retain a relatively consistent strong rhythmic pulse, the fact that sometimes he modifies the timing of this rhythmic interaction between his left and right hands should not be considered a mistake.

• Virtually all commentators would agree with Iyer here that Monk's choice of rhythmic variations and variety should not be considered a mistake. However, it does not follow from the fact that Monk is not making a rhythmic mistake during this improvisation that mistakes are not possible or senseless to consider possible during an improvisation.

Good and Bad Improvisations

• Consider what a music instructor might bring up during her critique of a student's improvisation. Faults in an improvisation can be considered a type of mistake. Here goes:

1. not emotional
2. too repetitive
3. inappropriate harmonies
4. bad phrasing
5. didn't tell a story
6. no beginning, middle, and end
7. boring
8. annoying

• On the opposite extreme, what can be meritorious about an improvisation:

1. fluid
2. innovative
3. effortless
4. pleasing
5. melodious
6. energetic
7. good articulation

Any improviser that does poorly in some contexts regarding these meritorious features could be considered to have made mistakes.

Jazz Articulation and Coltrane's Solo

At Jazzadvice they provide a Beginner's Guide to jazz articulation techniques. To be concrete and specific they analyze John Coltrane's solo on the song, "I Hear A Rhapsody." Here is what they explain about the three basic forms articulation can take, and do so take, in Trane's solo.

"John Coltrane has a wide variety of articulation techniques that vary from album to album, but his solo on "I Hear a Rhapsody" makes use of the primary three styles that he and other great players tend to use in a clear and definitive way.

It’s like this solo was made to be a study in articulation. It’s packed with way more information than we need to learn the fundamentals.

If you listened closely, you’ll note that he’s not exclusively using one type of articulation. In general, as we’ll delve into shortly, he mixes three different styles of articulation, even within one phrase.

The three types of articulation are:

• Hard articulation - an attack (tonguing for horn players) at the beginning of each sequential note.
• Slurred articulation – slurring (no tonguing for horn players) a group of notes together.
• “Jazz” articulation – the commonly taught way of articulating by attacking (tonguing for horns) on the upbeats and slurring into the downbeats.

Most of the time, teachers will say to use “jazz” articulation on everything, but a close look at the masters, and you’ll quickly realize that their lines sound a lot more interesting because they’re not adhering to this rule. They’re constantly mixing these three styles of articulation, like Coltrane does in his solo on "I Hear a Rhapsody." The result? His melodic lines come to life in a beautiful and clear way."

Why and how is this relevant to our investigation into the possibility of mistakes during an improvisation? Its relevance is obvious. Poor articulation is a mistake. What is meant by mistake here? See Ontimpr3. What is a mistake? where it is explained that mistakes can be misconceptions, errors in judgment, or misevaluations. Poor articulation could be caused by all three. Therefore, mistakes are both possible and actual during improvisations in jazz.

Defending Iyer's Claim Regarding Improvisation Mistakes

What might Vijay Iyer say about the list of possible mistakes listed above? He might well agree that in the context of a music lesson, 3. Inappropriate harmonies and 4. Bad phrasing would be termed mistakes. The other sorts of faults might be labeled differently. Can there be errors that are not exactly mistakes?

An improvisation that is too repetitive, for instance, is a bad improvisation, and there is a sense in which an error has occurred, certainly. Iyer could possibly agree that there can be bad improvisations, and that one that is too repetitive is a bad one, and yet still say that the improvisation did not commit any mistakes. Thus, there may be a "narrower" use of the term "mistake" that permits a more charitable reading of his claim regarding the impossibility of mistakes during an improvisation.

All that said, it still seems clear that even in this narrower sense, there can be mistakes in an improvisation. If a musician intends to play a D, but plays an Eb instead, that seems to be a mistake clear and simple. The question of whether one can judge 'from the outside' (as it were) whether or not a mistake has occurred seems separate from the question of whether or not a mistake did in fact occur. Again, maybe what Iyer should have said is that it is senseless for anyone other than the player to talk about deciding whether or not a mistake has occurred. Even here though a teacher could surmise from past performances of a player that he has a tendency to misplay the D for an Eb and so could come to believe prior to interviewing that player that this error/mistake had occurred again.