different than a jam because an improvised song usually develops in a way that tells a story, much more visual than jam, i guess i would possibly say more psychedelic

anyway, i guess i understand the final production, but i dont really know how a band goes into writing an improvised song, does a band write a bunch of parts for a specific song and basically jam and occasional incorporate those parts into to the song.   Or do they think? hey, light write a song about mountains, and then just start playing? or...

enlighten me

Aaron

dude...what are you talking about?

Where did you hear that there was a difference in an improved song and a jam song?

I don't follow you

I totally agree with Aaron, there most definitely is a distinction.  A jam implies a fixed, predictable chord sequence over which one player at a time solos, or soloing over one chord.  In an improvisation the structure is less fixed... chords and solos can happen but they are subordinated to the larger, less-structured whole.

You can hear the difference within the music of bands like John Stevens' Spontaneous Music Ensemble,  Derek Bailey's Music Improvisation Company, or the European improv group AMM, as opposed to bands like the Grateful Dead and Cream.  In the Euro-improv groups there is a kind of non-idiomatic, free improvisation where the traditional structure of song-solos-song is discarded and a kind of collective approach to sound (minus the familiar forms) is taken.  In the rock bands I mentioned they take a tune and make their spontaneous creative impulse fit the melodic and harmonic structure of that tune.

Another good example is King Crimson: the Islands band vs. the Larks' Tongues In Aspic band...I believe Fripp has alluded to this in the liner notes of some of the KC archival releases.  In the 1971/72 configuration, as on Earthbound  for instance, the rhythm section (bass and drums) sets up a pulse or groove consisting of one or two chords and the soloists (guitar and alto saxophone) improvise melodic and harmonic variations on those initial, fixed chords.  In the 1972-74 group, things are much less fixed, as in the improvs titled We'll Let You Know (on Starless and Bible Black) and Providence (from Red), where the players approach the pieces without any initial indication of a fixed melodic or harmonic content and end up in some sort of groove towards the end, as if the music has itself decided where to go. 

It's almost like jamming is what people generally regard as music funnelling into sound and improvisation is the more chaotic concept of pure sound becoming what is more familiar to our ears as music.

A fantastic book to read is the late Derek Bailey's "Improvisation: Its Nature and Practice In Music," an absolutely essential dissertation on this topic.

A jam and an improv can be pseunonomous (sp?) but not necessarily so. A jam is usually improvised but an improvisation doesn't have to follow a jam formula.

I think of jam bands as different from prog bands, but if you don't, Phish is a great example. Early Porcupine Tree is as well, though not always.

Providence on Red (King Crimson) is probably the greatest example I know of a fabulous improvisational experience where a structure and texture evolves spontaneously from 4 brilliant musicians really working together and listening. The band certainly did not reach these heights consistently (it would be unreasonable to expect it) and no-doubt Fripp with his high expectations never conceded that they did, but surely this is an example to be proud of. I couldnt swear there were no pre-determined guidelines prior to the performance, but I suspect (and i want to believe) that this was a mighty creation which appeared from no-where. A big bang indeed...

nobody wrote: I totally agree with Aaron, there most definitely is a distinction.  A jam implies a fixed, predictable chord sequence over which one player at a time solos, or soloing over one chord.  In an improvisation the structure is less fixed... chords and solos can happen but they are subordinated to the larger, less-structured whole. You can hear the difference within the music of bands like John Stevens' Spontaneous Music Ensemble,  Derek Bailey's Music Improvisation Company, or the European improv group AMM, as opposed to bands like the Grateful Dead and Cream.  In the Euro-improv groups there is a kind of non-idiomatic, free improvisation where the traditional structure of song-solos-song is discarded and a kind of collective approach to sound (minus the familiar forms) is taken.  In the rock bands I mentioned they take a tune and make their spontaneous creative impulse fit the melodic and harmonic structure of that tune. Another good example is King Crimson: the Islands band vs. the Larks' Tongues In Aspic band...I believe Fripp has alluded to this in the liner notes of some of the KC archival releases.  In the 1971/72 configuration, as on Earthbound  for instance, the rhythm section (bass and drums) sets up a pulse or groove consisting of one or two chords and the soloists (guitar and alto saxophone) improvise melodic and harmonic variations on those initial, fixed chords.  In the 1972-74 group, things are much less fixed, as in the improvs titled We'll Let You Know (on Starless and Bible Black) and Providence (from Red), where the players approach the pieces without any initial indication of a fixed melodic or harmonic content and end up in some sort of groove towards the end, as if the music has itself decided where to go.  It's almost like jamming is what people generally regard as music funnelling into sound and improvisation is the more chaotic concept of pure sound becoming what is more familiar to our ears as music. A fantastic book to read is the late Derek Bailey's "Improvisation: Its Nature and Practice In Music," an absolutely essential dissertation on this topic.

Another example of awesome rock improv is Deep Purple: Made in Japan. Absolute classic.