Do you have a system for categorizing or remembering "riffs"

When one learns "riffs", whether it is from transcribing a solo, or from other sources, it is important to be able to recall that in your playing.

100% of the great players I've heard give teaching lessons emphasize the importance of "copying" and learning solos by others. But the next step is incorporating this into your playing. If you've learned a great solo to "Stella By Starlight", but the tune is now "Sunny Side of the Street", how will you be able to incorporate what you have learned into your solo performance on a different song?

I was wondering if people have heard tips from teachers on this topic, or have developed a system for catalouging or remembering riffs.

For example, I saw a video with Joe Pass, where he calls them "lines", and categorizes them in 3 types (major, minor and dominant 7th). Then he plays a whole bunch of major "lines", and then a whole bunch of "minor" ones.

Please note that I am not suggesting remembering and recalling riffs is all there is to improvisation. And of course once you get good, you start forgetting these basic rules.

- Do you transcribe or learn solos?
- Once you have done this, do you have a system of remembering or removing parts of the solo that you might use in other solos? What is it?
- Do you have a system of categorizing types of riffs, similar to what Joe Pass has (3 types, major, minor, dominant 7th)

Having tried the 'licks over chords' approach I now find it results in a kind of tourists attempt to master a language rather than a deeper appreciation for the rules of grammar and syntax.

When I like part of a solo, I'm now trying to think more about what's going on inside the line in terms of grammar and syntax as well as vocabulary or note choices.

Considerations are along the lines of...

what sort of interval moves
what kind of ornamentation (deflections/ telescopes/rotations etc)
what scale or melodic cell is used,
Use of octave displacement
Beat displacement
Call and response
How the riff targeted the chord tones
How the longer pattern or riff grew from a smaller underlying rhythmic melodic/motif and how it was transformed,(augmentation/diminution etc) how the was the motif was sequenced etc.

When it's a complex modal lick that seems to unfurl over about 8 bars you want to be breaking it down into the melodic cells in use (often 4 note ones but not exclusively)and looking at how it went beyond the underlying harmony if at all.

If I was to categorize them which i don't..it would be more in terms of these factors. This way you can come up with your own based on the techniques you've discerned.


As far as transcribing goes..for me it's more a case of trying to get inside the mind of the soloist to see his longer term thinking rather than ransacking it for licks. If I take something from it then It'll be how to pace and structure the solo over a period of time. Mostly in I'm thinking about the broader sweep of the solo, how it was builds from its initial gestures, note placement in relation to the pulse and the use of space between phrases, how one phrase or motif leads to the next etc.

Really when your playing there often Isn't time for consciously using licks (if they happen to be there its usually subconscious). So if you are going to learn them make sure you can transform them and build upon them so they can be part of the natural flow rather than some discontinuous stream of quotations.

A really good resource for building coherent lines in an organic way is Bert Ligon 'Connecting Lines With Linear Harmony'. This is really about how you target guide tones and I think this is the best way for a beginner rather than learning a bunch of licks.
The 'licks over each chord' approach runs the risk of solos that sound stilted and contrived. Using a linear method gives you space to breathe and be spontaneous whilst keeping the overall structure in mind.

Beyond that you want to breaking tunes down to tonal centres to which a 4 or 8 bar group of chords resolve. the strong tonal points in a tune. Then you can experiment with various substitute ways of arriving at these strong tonal points that are different each time.


HTH

Regards

Alan

Hi Alan,

It's great to hear other perspectives, and thanks for the post. I explain below why the copy-from-the-pros method works for me, but there are many different ways to learn.

>>> Having tried the 'licks over chords' approach I now find it results in a kind of tourists attempt to master a language rather than a deeper appreciation for the rules of grammar and syntax.

Continuing with your analogy of learning to speak a language. The best learners of a language are children. They learn it by copying and imitating phrases that they hear. There is no study of rules of grammar needed or other analysis. This gets them fluent in the most natural sense, so that they can think and dream in the language. But it is not merely rote repetition. They also understand what they are saying, and make all kinds of connections, and put together new phrases that they have never heard. All this comes from copying and imitating.

This is the same type of approach that works for me in musical soloing. I play piano and guitar, and various styles in each. On piano I'm mainly playing jazz, blues, pop and boogie. For example, I can't imagine how I would learn 'boogie' piano without mainly copying other styles and riffs. It doesn't seem "derivable" to me from analyzing scales, modes, intervals, octave displacements, tonal centers - just seems like a bag of riffs, at least that's what works for me!

I've heard many students who have put too much time into scales, modes and theory, and not enough copying-from-the-greats. IMO, the results are very unmusical. Of course it's essential that in the copy-from-the-pros method, you need to also understand the theory of why the riffs sound good, so that you can properly integrate/modify them in your playing.

Peter

I hear what you're saying; jazz is/was primarily an oral tradition and is best learned through listening. Being aware of things like ornamentation, melodic cells, target notes on downbeats are best used a quick shorthand ways of understanding what's happening in a good line, no more than that. I agree also with the overemphasis on chord scales and modes and theory in general instead of listening. To say that knowing your scales is a guarantor of good solos is like saying that knowing the alphabet is a guarantee of becoming a good public speaker.

My suspicions about licks comes from hearing too many students string together so many regurgitated phrases out of context in the wrong places, and with no real attempt to personalize them or integrate them into an organic statement of their own.
There's also the problem of students showing little understanding about the difference between a fully formed melodic phrase and simply repeating/sequencing a 4 note cell throughout a scale or over the course of a progression. This kind of pattern is best used IMO as ways of linking one melodic idea to the next.

If on the other hand stimulates the kind of learning process you mention then its certainly a valid method. One lick can lead to many others and theory can help expand upon and highlight some of the things you can do to come up with variations of your own. But theory can't be allowed to dictate what is and isn't played to the exclusion of your own ear any more than simply playing licks verbatim by rote can be used as a replacement for developing a line.

Regards

Alan

Thanks Alan, I am in agreement with all of the above!

I went to music school which emphasized chord scale theory. Transcription was discussed but the emphasis was mostly on memorizing scales and chords. As a result my improvising, while 'correct', seemed very mechanical.

At the same time I would go to clubs and hear self-taught players that learned 'licks' off records. To my ears, the playing sounded contrived. Some guys just sounded like they were imitating other famous guitarists. Also, I found many ear players avoid learning to read music or understand theory because they were afraid it would hurt their playing.

So, I think too much of one or the other isn't good.

I've never been one for learning licks and writing them down or playing them in all keys. It just never seemed to work for me. What did work for me was learning to solo using all chord tones, and then begin to apply various approaches to them.

Lately I've been doing more transcribing. But instead of just learning licks and inserting them, I've been trying to really learn what makes them work, and how to manipulate them to other situations.

There are some great articles on the Jazz Advice site that discusses this topic. Actually the whole site contains valuable information about jazz improvisation. If you haven’t checked it out I highly recommend it.

This is a great topic.

Dana

Hi Dana

I was going to mention that very site but forgot to do so. It says much more concisely the very point about licks I was trying to get across. And as you say it's a great resource for the both the novice and the experienced improvisor looking to get out of a rut. I particularly liked the analysis of the Dexter Gordon lick in one of the articles and how you can generate 10 times the language from just one source.

Its as well to think how the greats arrived at the licks they created. They are primarily answers to recurring musical problems faced by the improvisor of outlining the harmony, marking the tempo, playing interesting chromaticism against the sound of the chord, using octave and rhythmic displacements and octave leaps to create motion and contrast. And this doesn't even begin to touch on the areas of articulation, timing, accents, playing ahead or behind the beat etc that make the difference between the same lick making an impact or not.

I feel the basics are much more about how to develop simple rhythmic melodic motifs through thematic variation techniques, so that you end up making your own phrases (paragraphs) that have a central argument or thread running through them.
Looking at it this way you might be surprised to pick out some interesting 'licks' of your own forged in the heat of the moment. However that's not how you conceived it at first and only in retrospect do they become solidified in the mind as 'licks'... this is the crucial point.

I think the problem with jazz at the moment is that rather like literal minded readings of ancient texts we've turned the products of a turbulent creative process into musical totem poles, forgetting that they were the answers to musical problems they came up with in their time. We have to discover the same 'heat of the moment' spontaneous solutions for our time rather than simply retread what has been already said. Taking music back to its elements and focussing on what is common to all musical genres is one way to achieve that.

The great jazz guitarist John Abercrombie, (perhaps the most consistently creative of all the 'big 4' with the possible exception of Frisell) is a master of adapting lines from different traditions; melding them together and playing each idea in about 20 different ways.

More importantly he is a fine exponent of the idea of improvising in a compositional way using the tune as material and building organically on small motifs and never forgetting to leave space, use his ears as a guide and let his wonderful sound make an impact. A master of the well timed intervention, even his smallest comping gestures behind other soloists seem so interactive they appear to take on a life of their own. Absolutely peerless, just ask the other big names who their top man is! So who am I to disagree!! I take him as my role model for how to improvise today by refusing to copy him!! (well okay I'm maybe influenced by his guitar tone..LOL)


Regards

Alan

I must confess I dont learn many 'licks', I do learn tunes, is there a difference?

It's easier to learn a lick like a parrot, but that's not to understand it. One way to improve understanding of a lick is to take it through other keys - BAIB is perfect for this. If you can do this then you know the function of the lick and it's more likely to turn up when you play freely.

It's said above that the music school chords scale approach tend to bring 'mechanicalness' (words to that effect anyway IMO) This can be true, but when you really know a scale or chord - can play it in many ways, then it begins to 'melt' and become more liquid.
I sometimes think of scales and chords as beginning life as a rusty bicycle chain - immovable - but with a bit of effort the beauty of the thing tends to begin to reveal itself - the chain is oiled and is then "articulated" you can bend and twist it. I am always finding new ways of doing this, and my basic method is to play any pattern forward then backwards over a chord structure, then take a note from the sequence - such as a third or fifth and start the pattern from there. Like this the pattern soon starts to wriggle around.

))) I must confess I dont learn many 'licks', I do learn tunes, is there a difference?

Yes, there is a big difference. A lick or riff is just a phrase, that's not part of the melody. It is part of the solo. It is typically 1 to 4 bars long.

Quote:

---

I must confess I dont learn many 'licks', I do learn tunes, is there a difference?

---

Think of learning a tune like learning a foreign language and memorizing Hamlet's "To be, or not to be" soliloquy and learning riffs like learning useful phrases like "My name is____", or "Can you give me directions to____" that can be woven together into a larger communication.