Many schools teach repertoire, not music — Vangelis
In my brief time studying classical guitar I noticed a common pattern in how this music is presented and taught. The pattern is that almost always the page dictates the hand and the hand seems to dictate the ear. This hierarchy never breaks and the ear ends up being the last recipient of care. In time, it becomes the least nourished to a noticeable degree so passion atrophies.
One memory I remember very well. My instructor was writing down some closing notes about what should I be practicing next time, while I continued to play. I played some arpeggios over a series of chords which in my opinion sounded pretty cool. My innocent untrained ear found them to be intriguing and I thought they had a hidden potential that needed further exploration. My instructor asked me who wrote that passage and from which piece it was part.
“From which book did you take it?“
“It's mine”, I responded reluctantly.
Silence for a couple of seconds followed by a quick change of subject. Although he seemed to like it, this quickly shifted and felt more than a “you should feel guilty” look even though no words were uttered. “It's not the way we think here”, he later added. Like I shouldn't be doing this because I'll learn the wrong music kinda thing.
I thought about it on my way home and wondered how classical music — or any music really — was written in the real world. Away from the sacredness of the score and the myth of the lone genius that was presented to me. Did it resemble what I did? I took one or two chords and started improvising around them by ear. I would add and remove notes without knowing the names of the chords, but I would rather follow my instinct. Anything that sounded good would be acceptable and only later on write down the chords so I wouldn’t forget. Could composers take such an approach? Or did it come about by knowing a ton of theory and following a strict set of guidelines beforehand?
In the following years, I would on and off think about it without giving a definitive answer to it. It was a mystery.
I
It is well known that J.S. Bach and other composers of that era improvised heavily. There is a reason why some refer to Bach as the first bebop player who ever lived since his lines sound a lot like patterns you hear in jazz improvisations. If you have ever improvised in your life or are exposed to jazz then the comparison will come as no surprise.
One documented example is when Bach improvised a six-part fugue for the King of Prussia. According to the story he did so over a melody he heard on the spot, only later on putting it down to paper. And this was not some kind of exception. It was widespread. Arguably one of the first methods demonstrating how to improvise was the organum. It dates back to the 9th century and it showed how to add embellishments to parts of Gregorian chants. Later on, in the Baroque era, it was the basso continuo. Same with the cadenza, a part within a concerto where the composer leaves space for the performer to cut it loose. So there were systems in place teaching the player the skill of improvisation and was generally accepted practice to do in public.
“Beethoven was unsurpassed in this style of fantasy-like improvisation. He himself could hardly reconstruct in writing the wealth of his ideas and harmonies as well as the nobility and consistency of his most highly artistic development” — Carl Czerny, excerpt from A Systematic Guide to Improvisation 1829
Like Czerny’s remarks on Beethoven, I imagine this scene from the movie Amadeus to be quite accurate. It showed Mozart improvising over Salieri's piece, adding his personal touch immediately, casually trying stuff out. I find this to be something many musicians of that era would do for fun, in some way or another, without any guilt.
II
Jazz pianist Bill Evans in his now legendary documentary, The Universal Mind of Bill Evans(1966), described why written notation and music sheets were invented. It was not at all to carve the proper notes in stone for the rest of time. It came from the need to catch music and pass it along to places and times where the composer is absent. They simply didn't have a better way to give some permanency to the music. The technology was primitive and electric recordings were not even a dream. So they resorted to the prevailing technologies of the time which were pen and paper. Nowadays, we have all these recordings so technology helps us catch music forever and enjoy a more accurate representation of it. We know what Jimmy Cobb's cymbal on Miles Davis’s So What sounds like(around the 1:30 mark just before Miles's improvisation). You can’t ever write this in its entirety and communicate it to the player sufficiently. In a way music that was never recorded near the time of its inception and only written down is incomplete. For the mere fact that we don’t know what the composer fully intended.
Bill Evans said in the interview that in his view, jazz is more of a resurrection of the lost art of improvisation rather than a new stylistic medium. It’s, first and foremost a way of thinking and making music and then a style of music.
When I first heard this I was in shock on why nobody presented this perspective to me and baffled on why it didn't occur to me to ask.
This didn't come cost-free though. With all the fruits technology offers, human nature always finds a way to enslave itself with yet another barrier that is waiting to be overcome. With our current ability to capture music for eternity, the pressure to be perfect and not listen to our mistakes for the rest of eternity rose as well. So in favor of perfection, we sacrificed improvisation. We mitigated the unpredictability that breeds mistakes. But we also mitigated the unpredictability that breeds creativity. We won a stupid battle and lost a meaningful war.
(In later years for example performers stopped improvising their cadenzas. They relied more on written(and tested) ones squandering yet another opportunity to be creative. You can't blame them either because they didn't receive the necessary training but it is still sad)
III
I think Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, and Liszt would likely encourage us to improvise over their compositions. They would do it themselves if they were alive today for sure. And would actually be baffled as to why we still play their music the same way. Just listen to Jacques Loussier playing Bach’s Prelude No. 1 in C Major to see what I mean as a good example. Bach would approve I suspect.
Improvisation offers us freedom of expression and exposes the spontaneity of the moment. But it serves another purpose as well. A deeper and more subtle one. It makes melodies from the past mold with the present making them current and relatable again. And here comes the job of the improviser — or at least part of it — which is to continuously find new avenues on how to play something and reveal new perspectives on what a melody can offer. To bring all their experiences and musical taste to the table to serve that present moment.
And of course, some snobs will consider this as “abuse” because some attempts will undoubtedly sound pretty bad. Just like it happens in other types of music. There is no way around this. But why should a particular genre be exempt from this? Is it preferable to spend your time practicing facial expressions? Yes, this is a real thing they do so they can seem more connected to the music while performing. Why not connect with your genuine creativity by improvising instead, even if it sounds a bit off?
IV
Years later I kind of get it. I get why my teacher reacted to my little silly chord sequence played in a classical-ish way in that manner. It was a direct byproduct of this pursuit of unreachable and unattainable perfection. Over the years, this pursuit became highly systematized altering the teaching culture of classical music education. It crippled generations of students with bad thought processes that enforce unhealthy constrain. That fosters over-reliance on substitutes for creativity.
I’m far from the first person to suggest that there might be a slight problem in classical music education. But I’m afraid I have no good answers here since my hands-on experience is minuscule.
This clip with Michael Omartian though is telling. He said that his instructor would hold a ruler and smack him every time he would improvise. Weirdly enough, I've heard many such stories over the years, all having to do with a ruler. Imagine if Michael Omartian went on with his classical studies. What kind of teacher would he be?
One such substitute is this fixation with sight reading. Being able to read is a useful skill to have but by definition always comes second compared to being able to play and improvise. Ι’ve seen people play Chopin’s Fantaisie-Impromptu Op. 66 for example at a pretty high level but couldn’t play one phrase of the piece without the music sheet. Hell, they couldn't even play Mary Had a Little Lamb without the score in front of them.
And the irony is that “Fantaisie” here refers to the music form of fantasia where performers are free to “fantasize”. It truly comes to a great detriment that this is actively discouraged in the classical world.
When you mention to a teacher that J.S. Bach and the likes improvised most will agree. Saying otherwise would be historically inaccurate after all. But they stress the composer's genius too much to the point of discouragement. Or they might say something like they just knew how to do it. But how would they know? I can't help but think that they must have been exposed to it constantly without guilt, perceiving it as a natural thing to do. A natural part of music. Just like you leave a toddler mumble senseless words among adults knowing that it will learn someday. You don't shut it down by saying they are not good enough or that they'll talk once they have the grammar down.
V
I hope this can change someday so we can lift all great music and make it truly accessible. Not something that is happening only in concert halls and conservatoriums. To make it timeless, not just old.
If we want to honor the likes of Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, and a myriad of other great composers of every era, we should re-recognize improvisation as an integral part of their music and actively revive it. This will not only make music a service but also improve the social aspect of music. The one where musicians of all levels, play together and learn from each other.
Market forces apply here too so this can’t happen in a top-down fashion. Rather the supply will be forced to serve the ones doing the demanding.
We the people. You the audience.
Great article John. As always!. But let me share an opinion about something. I do not know at what level you were when your guitar teacher reacted like this, but I believe that, in order to improvise, you need first learn the basics and then master a song. This is the moment that you are able to alter what you know and show you character and fantasia to a song. So to improvise. Maybe this is why your teacher acted like this. "Relax kid, first learn the song and then do what you want". This is more a speculation because otherwise what teacher he is when he doesn't let you feel free. Maybe he didn't have all the skills to become a top teacher 😜
Good to see another post man!