Improvisation

A question regarding this... How much improvisation do you like in your prog, and how important do you think it is for prog musicians to be able to improvise, even if it's on a small scale like a drummer improvising their fills? I appreciate this depends on the band entirely and the kind of music, but what about your tastes specifically?

Personally I think it's a key element to all music. I always prefer improvisation in everything as it makes me feel like I'm actually there... As a result I'm not a massive fan of multitracking

So what do you guys think? I think it's an important question that I suppose we all think about at some point!

I would argue though that with King Crimson the improvisation was the focal point, especially in songs like Starless, Indiscipline (Bruford's opening solo) and Level Five off the top of my head.

Well I have to beg to differ. A lot of progressive rock compositions were based on initial improvs. Hocus Pocus is a good example. But these guys also had a certain degree of formal musical training which made it so much more interesting. Sometimes Rush live bores me to tears because their live performances so much resemble the studio versions. I might as well stay at home and listen to 2112 cranked to eleven. I remember reading this once back in the 70s. Fripp proposed an album of King Crimson songs played  the way they are not supposed to be played. The record company did not go for it. I always love hearing variations on themes. Every time I have seen Crimson live it's been an enlightening experience. I love the off the top of their heads improvs. Listen to the Crimson jazz trio if you haven't already.

Edited by Vibrationbaby - August 09 2013 at 07:06

I can enjoy both, each within its context. J-R/F offers more room for improvisation and that is fine, but some underlying structure is needed. For classic symphonic played live I prefer the musicians to respect the musical form but I appreciate when they don't play just an exact replica of the studio version, some variations are always welcome.

Jazz also incorporates vocal improvisations. 



But to do something like this in prog, the scope of the composition and especially its vocal melody needs to be really broad, whereas usually it's just a few verses interjected between long interludes. 

I think any good musician will improvise when he can---the groups I love live play around with certain parts to make the live experience "Live"---I'm not talking long improvised solo's--talking about changing things up within the framework of the song and not playing it note for note as recorded.

When I was in high school I played in the stage band. I would double on tuba and electric bass guitar sometimes during rehearsals I would jump on the drum kit as well. We had this really talented piano player named Andrea who had been playing since she was in diapers. But she stuck to the sheet music while I was making up my own parts. She had the bass lines to play with her left hand and she would always complain that I was throwing her off. She would always have the sheet music in front of her. Because of her rigid training she didn't really know what improvising was. She hated my guts. I really felt sorry for her. But the last I heard she went on to be a successful concert pianist. I guess I'm happy for her. I wonder if she remembers me and if she learned anything from me.

I guess it's all down to who's doing it and the delivery itself. I'm a huge Krautrock fan, and while I wouldn't in a million years call this brand of music prog - it still remains one of the most progressive takes on rock music imo. Krautrock practically emerged from improvisation. It's the core of something like 99% of the early pioneers.

Being used to free form music, I wouldn't mind some bands to be more adventurous on stage - or just trying not to sound like the records! I LOVE Iron Maiden, but I've always been puzzled (and a bit disappointed, too) hearing the guitarists playing their solos like on the records note by note...

Furthermore, since many progressive bands not only listened to classical European music, but also Jazz and even "classical" Indian music, one could expect to hear some musicians improvising: after all, Steve Howe was interviewed by free jazz guitarist Derek Bailey for a book about improvisation.

There were also bands like Henry Cow or This Heat which could rearrange their songs in drastic ways, if not taking the "risk" to try free improvisations without any pre-determined theme or rhythm (going further than King Crimson, by the way...)
So, I'm always a bit disappointed to hear bands playing on stage the same stuff that they played in studio: if a concert is just a mean to promote a record, then they could just have a "meet and greet" event!
They could even do the same thing as Kate Bush or the Sisters of Mercy around 1987-88: shoot videos instead of touring (okay, I may begin to sound a bit harsh...)

But, on the other hand, when a band touring for 40 years try to play most of its standards or hits, I can understad that the musicians "stick to the book" - otherwise, their concerts would last 3 or 4 hours! Just imagine Yes or Genesis playing two or three 20-minutes epics and a dozen of 5-minutes songs...

Or The Grateful Dead. Could you imagine a grateful Dead concert without well, firstly drugs and then improvisation. I think this short vid explains the whole Krautrock mindset .

Edited by Vibrationbaby - August 09 2013 at 12:18