To answer your question - is there an ethical code in jazz improvisation - I hope not. To impose such a code would require a certain amount of conformity - just as following rules in everyday life. Often, rules are for the insecure - if you're not sure what you're doing, follow the rules. However, don't break the rules until you understand them so well that you can break them in an artistic manner. Reharmonization is often overused by certain players and composers but I find it to be an effective tool in helping me to make music that is unique and personal.

But on the other side of the argument, I have, in the past, told students that if they're going to change the harmonies so much that it makes the melody unrecognizable, then they should just write a new piece.

Interesting question - lots of different opinions and ways to approach it.

To answer your question - is there an ethical code in jazz improvisation - I hope not. To impose such a code would require a certain amount of conformity - just as following rules in everyday life. Often, rules are for the insecure - if you're not sure what you're doing, follow the rules. However, don't break the rules until you understand them so well that you can break them in an artistic manner. Reharmonization is often overused by certain players and composers but I find it to be an effective tool in helping me to make music that is unique and personal.

But on the other side of the argument, I have, in the past, told students that if they're going to change the harmonies so much that it makes the melody unrecognizable, then they should just write a new piece.

Interesting question - lots of different opinions and ways to approach it.

Dear William

Thank you very much. Your answer is very interesting. As far as rules are concerned, I partially agree with you. "Rules are for the insecure": in my opinion, this is a very extreme statement. "Est modus in rebus", someone claimed. Both in music and in life. I'm not an anarchist! Music is communication. And communication is unconfutably characterized by rules. If I want to convey a message, I have to take necessarily into account my interlocutors (their languages, verbal or not). Consequently, as far as I'm concerned, a musician should take into consideration his/her audience (and colleagues!), even if he/she decides, once achieved a reasonable awareness, to break the rules. "I have, in the past, told students that if they're going to change the harmonies so much that it makes the melody unrecognizable, then they should just write a new piece". Exactly! Several years ago I listened to a really astonishing quartet. Two leaders (a pianist and a guitarist), both renowned and estimeed all around the world. I intentionally avoid revealing the names of the musicians. A well-known 16 bars harmonic structure (I intentionally avoid revealing the title of the song!). At a certain point, the pianist, during his solo, made the structure so unrecognizable [due to brutal (and sometimes "forbidden") substitions and extreme metric displacements] that the guitarist turned out to be totally unable to start his improvisation "from the right point" and, incredibly, after a while he stopped playing. Tough topic, anyway. Once again, thank you very much!

The same response of Williams comforms to what I have always told jazz musicians who cared for my opinion. Sometimes one hardly recognizes the melody of a particular piece because a jazz instrumentalist is seated at the piano or whatever instrument.

Although rules are made by man and for man, which is susceptible to modification or nullification, it shouldn't be studied prior to continuation or abandonment. It baffles me when I listen so deep to get what someone is playing only to discover that it's just a common hymn.

Now my question..... If the instrumentalist has all those inspiration and craft, why not go ahead to compose a fresh piece to serve a credit to his name?

Dear Innocent

Thank you very much for your answer. "If the instrumentalist has all those inspiration and craft, why not go ahead to compose a fresh piece to serve a credit to his name?". Obviously, I agree with you. Thank you!

Greetings Carmine and thanks for these provocative questions. Although it seems you're referring to the standards repertoire, I thought you might find Steve Lacy's remarks on 'free jazz' and rules in the 1960s interesting, as follows:

It was very exciting, revolutionary music: but after one year, the music started to sound the same, every night. It was no longer ‘free.’ Then came the ‘post-free,’ where we started to limit and control, and exploit the kind of playing we had discovered.

After some years of this, the discarded elements (melody, harmony, rhythm, structure, form) returned to the music: renovated, refreshed, wide open with possibilities. We called this ‘poly-free,’ because the freedom might be anywhere, in a given piece. Also one became free to be not free, if one chose.

Perhaps 'free to be not free' places the choice of control or not in the performers' hands. Something like Klee's (I think) definition of drawing as 'taking a line for a walk'? Maybe the essential point in all this is that the rules of what is appropriate or not in jazz are subject to (r)evolutionary processes and mutate over time ... as do all things, it seems.

Thanks again. Best, Marc

Dear Mark

Thank you very much for the great attention you've been paying to my questions (I'm also referring to the previous one). Your opinion is very valuable. I sincerely hope you will keep on contributing to my discussions on ReasearchGate. Once again, thank you!

There does not seem to be anything wrong with "modify[ing] a harmonic progression" in jazz, but of course one has to consider what kind of jazz is intended. History of Jazz and History of Commerce, at this point in the 21st century, are already vast enough to allow for someone to do "his/her improvisation" according to Bebop tradition, as well as Free Jazz, or Cool Jazz, or even Swing (without decharacterizing jazz improvisation), or any other branch of jazz. In each of those, there are particular "rules" (or at least idiomatic musical gestures) to be followed in order to characterize or decharacterize a period.

Rule-breaking, as has been previously mentioned, should only be done after one knows how to use (and after one has fully practiced) the rules of improvisation for that jazz tradition in which one intends to engage. Rule-breaking will, therefore, not only depend on implementing and knowing which specific rules will be maintained (in order to preserve this or that tradition), but also depend on understanding which specific rules will be broken, and which specific new gestures will be used (in order to create a individual jazz idiom that can be ultimately understood by the targeted public, or even to contribute to a whole new collective tradition). Rule-breaking, ultimately speaking, involves as previous awareness (theoretical as well as practical) of rules, involves a creation of patterns (thus, new rules), and finally involves (some would say) the abidance to rules (both old and new). Of course, there is no music without organization and, therefore, there is no music without rules to be followed (or to which one should abide). In this sense, I submit that "modify(ing) a harmonic progression" (at least in mainstream jazz improvisation) is not new, but rather the rule.

Dear Clovis

Thank you very much for your answer. In spite of the fact that, very evidently, I don't completely agree with you, your point of view is undoubtedly interesting. Once again, thank you!

My very simple answer is, remember the devil's interval. Jazz musicians are meant to explore, to take the music someplace that they want to see it taken. If I wanted to improvise a solo melody based around tritones I will and if I only want to partially alter a phrase by changing 1 note within a progression I will as long as what I have done is based on where the music leads me or where I would like to see it lead my fellow musicians and listeners. Where we take an improvisation in a solo, melody or even a progression may help lead a listener or another musician to seek another or other interpretations and perhaps 'hear' some of their own changes in the key of life.

Dear Christopher

Thank you very much for your answer. Yes, exploration is fundamental. Nonetheless, in my opinion, a musician should explore a composition without making it unrecognizable. At the beginning, when I achieved a reasonable capability of carrying out harmonic substitutions in real time (secondary dominants, tritone, sidestepping, backdoor solution), I started building very complex improvisations. Quite soon, however, I understood that I was following the wrong path. I was warming up before a concert. At a certain point, a collegue of mine reached me and said: "Great stuff mate! What song are you playing?" Well, it was simply "On Green Dolphin Street", but it had been so brutally modified (although by strictly abiding by the harmonic rules), that my collegue, a very expert jazz musician, turned out to be completely unable to recognize it. Once again, thank you!

Hi Carmine: Seems to me this question has less to do with ethics (as in how far one is allowed to go) than that of identity, and your anecdote about warming up on Green Dolphin St somewhat bears this out, to the point that your colleague couldn't recognise the original traces. Django Bates' version of 'New York, New York' comes to mind, in which he transforms the jolly upbeat original into a seething cityscape of traffic noise, sirens, angular complex musical phrases scurrying along like people in a hurry, and a deadpan vocal delivery that seems highly ironic. So one recognises the contours of the original, but he has transformed it into something quite different altogether. Probably inadvisable for one's musical career to include this particular version in the dinner set of a corporate function, I suggest.

Thank you Carmine for such a stimulating question. I read with much interest all previous notes and comments. I would like to go back to your question about the existence of an ethical code for jazz improvisation. If "ethical" is too much here, I would talk about an "aesthetical" code for improvisation, that should be a code based both on musician's taste and harmonic rules. Does it make sense? And a second point I would like to raise deals with the relationship between improvisation and rules. Isn't the break of rules a way to follow different rules? What drives us when we change an harmonic progression playing a jazz standard? Couldn't be the "aesthetical code" the answer? In this sense, this code is the musicians ability to resolve a harmony or play a theme in an unexpected, though musically meaningful, way. You asked: "To what extent do you think a jazz musician is allowed to modify a harmonic progression during his/her improvisation?". My answer: "To what extent do you think a chef is allowed to modify the recipe of a traditional food?". Thank you all for this fruitful discussion, Nicola.

Dear Marc

"Probably advisable for one's musical career to include this particular version in the dinner set of a corporate function" - I've tried to imagine such a scenario...I'm still laughing! Thank you Marc, it's a pleasure to read your answers!

Dear Nicola

Thank you very much for your valuable answer.

"To what extent do you think a chef is allowed to modify the recipe of a traditional food?". Let's imagine I've just reached a restaturant in Rome. I take my seat, take a look at the menù, and ask the waiter to bring me a plate of "pasta and beans" (it's explicitly on the menù). Obvioulsy, I should find some beans in the plate. Let's now imagine that, paradoxically, I find peas instead of beans in the plate. The moment I ask the waiter to provide a reasonable explanation, he says: "Sir, what's the problem? Both beans and peas are legumes!". What do I want to say? You can add salt, spices, tomatoes, act on the cooking time so as to modify the density of the sauce and the consistency of the pasta (purchased in a supermarket or homemade, with or without eggs)...In a few words, you can do everything you want, but bring me beans, not peas!!! Thank you very much, dear Stefano!

Dear Carmine, you got the point. Now we should go back from the cooking metaphor to music: what are "beans" in a jazz standard? Chords? Chords relationship? Major/minor modes? Can we a priori way decide what are "beans" in a specific standard? Very hard questions! Thanks again! Nicola

Dear Nicola

Firstly, thank you very much for your interest.

I'll try to extremely summarize my point of view.

Extremely, since the topic is very hard: actually, in fact, I should address the concepts of "local tonal center" and (local) compatibility between a harmonic substituition and the theme. Starting from a banal turnaround, I can write (by simply resorting to well-known diatonic substitutions, secondary dominants, and tritone) as follows:

|: Cmaj7 | A –7 | D –7| G7 :| (100% Beans)

|: Cmaj7 | A7 | D –7| G7 :| (75% Beans)

|: E –7 | A7 | D –7| G7 :| (50% Beans, since here E–7 is not Phrygian, but Dorian!)

|: E 7 | A7 | D 7| G7 :| (25% Beans)

|: E 7 | Eb7 | D 7| Db7 :| (0% Beans)

To be sincere, I'm not so orthodox! It's just to (extremely) simplify.

Once again, thank you very much!

The example is very clear. Thank you for such a stimulating discussion.

P.S. I would only say that "E 7 | Eb7 | D 7| Db7" is, let's say, at least 5%. In fact, 0% should be something "random" like F#7 A7 G#b5 Bmaj7...

Dear Nicola

Yes, I agree with you. However, once again, I've extremely simplified the line of reasoning. Thank you very much!

IFirst of all, harmonic ingenuity is often at stake and to be commended. Even a typical chord substitution, easily identified with the original, usually implies that subsequent chords will also be modified. I doubt there is any ethic involved but I do personally not enjoy ingenity that ends up sounding altogether free form. Another point is that many artists compose their own tunes, usually to complex harmonies, and since the tune is unfamiliar to the listener, it doesn't much matter how far removed the improv is from the original.

Dear Thomas

Thank you very much for your valuable answer. "I do personally not enjoy ingenuity that ends up sounding altogether free form". Yes, this is the point. Thank you!

Paul Berliner: Thinking in Jazz addresses this issue some and is illuminating with regards to how instrumentalists conceive of their work. There is no ethical code in jazz, but there are stylistic schools, and pedagogical practices which teach/emphasize certain chord substitutions. Some of these have been addressed in other answers: iii sub for I, b5 substitutions, backcycling, Coltrane changes etc. are all commonly taught in Jazz education. In my opinion, the modification of the chord progression is under the purview of the soloist in interaction/communication with their rhythm section. It is entirely possible that an improvisation can sound free form, or even be conceptual (e.g. physical gestures without sound) , but those possibilities will exist on the extreme of the spectrum.

Dear Mark

Thank you very much for your interesting answer. "Those possibilities will exist on the extreme of the spectrum". I agree with you and highlight "on the extreme" (at least as far as I'm concerned). Once again, thank you!

I have enjoyed reading the varied responses above, particularly Marc's quote from Steve Lacy! As a pianist, I can "get away" with harmonizing (or "re-harmonizing", if you will) the head and/or my improvisational variations of said tune at will and as long as there is a logical or pleasing progression of harmonies that support the melody, it sounds interesting. Once my right hand is "improvising" I can still adhere to whatever choices I make harmonically with my left. In other words, the harmonic and melodic material remain compatible, no matter where they lead. Art Tatum re-calibrated the harmonic underpinnings of tunes often when playing solo piano, and they work pretty darn well. However, he (and any solo pianist or guitarist) couldn't (can't) exercise nearly as much spontaneous latitude in harmonic choice while playing with other musicians (say, a bass player; or accompanying a horn players or singer), or things get messy.

When I was 17 years old and Freshmen at New England Conservatory in Boston I had recently been turned on the music of Cecil Taylor, the Art Ensemble of Chicago, and Albery Aylor by my roommate, Tadd Schull. I knew tunes and standards and was hired to play a "straight ahead" DUO gig by a tenor player in Bowdoin College in Maine. We drove up together and I started exercising my newfound freedom over the changes to every tune we played, doing my best to channel Cecil Taylor's angularities, secondal textures, and energetic rhythmic fields into nearly every tune we played the first set. The tenor player was pissed and told me to "play it straight" at the break. I told him I didn't want to limit myself to the same old things. He said, you won't work here if you play like that. The lesson I obviously learned was, "play to the situation." Had I experimented more with harmonic and melodic development that built off of what he was doing (he sounded quite like George Coleman, I think) he would have dug my playing more, and I would have discovered ways to take the tunes we played to a place that was mutually compatible to each of us.

To the question, I feel that the most rewarding music to listen to, for me, is that which re-molds the original structures into something organic and is done collectively (in a group setting) so that all the parts relate in meaningful way and develop in relation to each other. Just inventing wildly new harmonic pathways over standard chords without regard to how you sound in relation to the ground bass and harmonic accompaniment leaves me cold and confused.

Thanks for your post, Carmine!

Dear Bruce

Firstly, thank you very much for your interest. I've read your answer with great attention.

"Once my right hand is "improvising" I can still adhere to whatever choices I make harmonically with my left. In other words, the harmonic and melodic material remain compatible, no matter where they lead." During a piano solo, as far as I'm concerned, your approach is quite admissible. Nonetheless, in order to make the composition clearly recognizable, I like to abide by the harmonic structure (net of some simple substituitions) in any case.

"[...] the most rewarding music to listen to, for me, is that which re-molds the original structures into something organic and is done collectively (in a group setting) so that all the parts relate in meaningful way and develop in relation to each other". In the above-mentioned statement, you've excellently defined the concept of "interplay": however, in my opinion, there's no point in (re)molding a harmonic structure into something completely different (you'd better compose something completely new!).

Once again, thank you very much!

Carmine,

I feel in reading back that I did not fully address your question, "is there an ethical code in jazz improvisation?" What are the "ethics" of storytelling? How close must one stay to the original story line (plot, set of characters and their development, and outcomes) in order to convey the intended message of the story? Again, I will make a case that a single storyteller will have greater latitude in bending some of the "rules" of the game than a group of actors, and therefore, that in a group setting adherence to a larger set of rules may need to be established.

To your point, HARMONIC RULES apply to the performance of a piece (in the context of jazz and jazz improvisation) only to the extent that the players can 'hear' greater or lesser harmonic structures that are somehow based upon the original harmonies. Secondly, any "rules" about enhancing or changing harmony are just that - -conventions set up by others - - therefore subject to scrutiny and debate. Thirdly, there are at least two different ways to perceive so-called "re-harmonizations": a) heard from the perspective of, and therefore as compared to, the original set of harmonies, and b) heard anew, as a fresh harmonic setting of a given cantus firmus (melody), without reference to any pre-existing other harmonic structure. The latter is difficult to do when the listener is familiar with the original and has a priori expectations. For the novice listener, however, a different set of harmonies that are somehow pleasing or engaging to listen to, can possibly be as fulfilling as the original harmonies. In the case of the former, hearing with a priori expectations, the extent of surprise and degree of harmonic tinkering is rather subjective to each listener. Codes of ethics will have a pretty wide range of acceptability and tolerance.

Dear Bruce

In the light of your last reply, I want to underline that I intentionally resorted to the expression "ethical code" with the exclusive purpose of accentuating the question. Actually, there's no point in speaking about "ethical code", in the strict sense of the expression. As far as I'm concerned, nonetheless, an improviser should constantly bear in mind that he/she is a messages carrier. The message has not been conceived by the improviser, but by the author of the song. The improviser is clearly allowed to paraphrase the message, without transcending its authentic meaning. In my opinion, coherently with what I've just declared, it's widely advisable to comply with the harmonic structure: in other terms, net of some substitutions we can regard as conventional, a song should be always recognizable. In this regards, to avoid being considered excessively orthodox, I highlight that a harmonic structure can be subjected to local fluctuations (I'm not banally referring to tonicization, micromodulations, ordinary half tone displacements) intentionally placed by the improviser in specific transition points. The above mentioned fluctuations, what's more, can be even carried out without abiding by the conventional harmonic rules. However, this phenomenon should be restricted to a certain number of bars. If the transfiguration lasts so long that the audience turns out to be completely unable to recognize a song, the improviser, to my mind, has definitely missed the point. Once again, thank you very much!

The answer is the same as the answer to all important questions: it depends.

Dear David

Thank you for your short (but anyway significant) answer and for having implicitly considered my question as being worthy of importance. Thank you!

Here, as in most other instances, the framing of the question is crucial. If you approach music as a system, or body of systems, bound by rules, then you will miss much of what it has to offer. Music is organised not by rules but by tendencies. Rules imply a legalistic framework and operate a priori. Tendencies describe human behaviour and are observed a posteriori. Music is limited only by the desire of the musicians involved. What is acceptable to an audience in a particular location and time may not be acceptable to the same audience elsewhere/when or to a different audience – so much for the rules. All that a categorical term such as jazz does is to group together instances on the grounds of similarity. I suggest, therefore, reframing the question.

Dear Allan

Thank you very much for your answer.

Your point of view is very interesting and deserves great consideration, without any doubt whatsoever. Obviously, I cannot completely agree with you. In my opinion, as previously highlighted, music is communication. If I want to be concretely heard (if I want to effectively convey a message, as it were, without running the risk of being misunderstood), I have to necessarily abide by rules, at least in a certain measure. Once again, thank you very much!

I love this conversation - it illustrates so many of the issues we face in music practice and education. Allan mentioned audiences, and of course there needs to be a degree of audience tolerance when improvising. Having said that, audiences are generally happy to have their listening challenged at some point in a set. What about students? The conversation has highlighted the need for them to know the rules before breaking them. This is true, and yet I'm really interested to know whether the 'rules' inhibit creativity. Remember Nadia Boulanger and Arvo Pert? Brilliant example of the 'master' accepting that there was simply another way to think about the problem. She allowed Pert huge creative (read rule) freedom, and yet I suspect she also insisted that he knew the rules he was breaking.

Dear Dawn

Thank you very much for your your answer. I sincerely hope this conversation could contribute, at least in a certain measure, to sketching a demarcation line, as it were, between freedom and anarchy in improvisation. Once again, thank you!

Dear Carmine Cataldo,

I would like to share my opinion from https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_do_you_think_is_one_of_the_most_undervalued_professions_right_now

"From my point of view, the most underrated profession is a profession that would be useful to society, but it is not encouraged for various reasons. For example, for a long time there was such a profession as "musical improvisation on a given topic". Where are these musicians now? I do not see them at all. But I want to point out that many famous composers like Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt, Rachmaninov and others were wonderful musical improvisers. Musical improvisation is a very creative profession in which one need to show own talent and ingenuity the variations on a given topic, in order to that each time the musical performance will be completely new. Now the vast majority (almost all) of musicians can perform music only on notes. We practically do not see public improvisations anywhere. But this is very valuable when people are present under live musician's improvisation. In general, musical improvisation is a special gift, it is impossible to learn here. This is above all talent. Thus, let's revive this musical genre and encourage it as much as possible".

To the above, I would like to add the following: The quality of musical improvisation strongly depends not only on finger technique, but primarily on the general culture of the performer, on his intellectual level, in other words, on the mind of the performer. There are smart improvisations and there are silly improvisations. However, let the audience decide for themselves what they like best. In my opinion, the trend is this: what will be the intellectual level of society, such will be the level of improvisation.

In my opinion, jazz improvisation 60-70 years ago was much smarter and more informative than now. In my opinion, that improvisation was classics compared to today. For example, I still enjoy the jazz improvisation of Glen Miller's orchestra from the amazing musical comedy "Sun Welley Serenade" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKb-qfwbZ2M

Dear Gennady

Thank you very much for your precious contribution: the topic is undoubtedly thorny, and your answer denotes a remarkable knowledge of music history (in its entirety). "The quality of musical improvisation strongly depends not only on [...] technique, but primarily on the general culture of the performer, on his (/her) intellectual level, in other words, on the mind of the performer." - I completely agree with you, dear Gennady. Once again, thank you very much!

https://www.jazzadvice.com/playing-longer-lines-in-your-solos/

Dear Luciano

Thank you very much for your answer. "It needs to keep a minimum of relationship with the original reference." - I completely agree with you. In the description, in fact, I wrote: "Several jazz musicians are in the habit of transfiguring the harmonic progression so deeply that the particular song becomes de facto unrecognisable." (this is the "problem"!)

Once again thank you very much!

Dear Luciano

Firstly, once again, thank you very much for taking an interest in my question. My motto is "Est Modus in Rebus". I've elsewhere shown how, net of some progressions explicitly based upon the so-called "Pure Plagal Cadence" (IVmaj7 | Imaj7), all the Popular Jazz Songs, as far as the harmonic structure is concerned, may be considered as originating from a single chord (a Major Seventh Chord or, exploiting the harmonization of whatever minor scale, a Minor Seventh). In other terms, by opportunely exploiting substitutions [diatonic substitutions, secondary dominants, tritone substitutions, diminished substitutions, quality substitutions (dominant to major) and expansions (any Dominant Seventh Chord can be imagined as being preceded by a Minor Seventh Chord or a Half-Diminished Chord distant a descending perfect fourth)], we can obtain whatever harmonic progression starting from a single chord (subjected to tonicization). For example, I can transform a simple 16 bars song based upon the progression | Bmaj7 | F#7 | Bmaj7 | into "Giant Steps". What does it mean? It simply means that the audience, no matter the degree of experience, will listen to (an improvisation based on) "Giant Steps", completely forgetting the original composition!

Once again, thank you!