Whether to study jazz or classical.

[weswood88]

I know this is probably a question you guys get all the time, but I think with each person his/her case may be different. I am very torn on which to study, and would appreciate some of your input. I am pretty much just starting out, I never learned music as a child, but I picked up and began playing rock guitar at 16, now 20 years old, I have been studying theory and music basics for the past year (since i was 19) and am torn between which to study.

I started out when I took a Class for guitar music theory in which a classical instructor taught, and for some reason, he was looking for students who were interested in becoming music majors, and getting private lessons. During the summer of last year he called me and for some reason chose me, wanting me to get into it. So I agreed and spent a semester studying basic classical, although struggling with my right hand technique and playing alone in front of others. I slowly got better at it but I seemed to have an issue with playing for this specific instructor, as he was very strict and impatient.

I didnt mind the fact he was strict, I felt it was good for me, but I wasnt getting the hang of the right hand technique, and repitoire that I could play easily at home alone, would end up coming out off tempo and alot of times, playing for him, I would completely mess up the piece, he would get extremely irritated with me. I eventually just told him it wasnt for me, and am now taking up Jazz basics with an incredible Jazz guitar instructor. But sometimes I wonder if I should have stuck with classical longer, but then other times I feel that Jazz is a more personally expressive music style.

Now that you know a little more about me, I can probably pose my questions now.

I think I like the structure of classical, the philisophical and spiritual aspects of classical as well. I also feel I like the virtuosity that classical players achieve. But at the same time I like Jazz and lots of other more contemporary styles of music.

What I want to know is A) Is there a spiritual and philisophical approach to Jazz like there is with classical guitar. Many Classical musicians seem to have an almost spiritual bond with their music, the music flows through them, and I really admire that. B) in your educated oppinion, for someone who has a history of being anxious which style of music would be better for me?

any input you guys can give me would be really appreciated and sorry for the long backstory, I just have such a huge love for all aspects of music, I feel that i have begun a spiritual awakening towards music of my own, my eyes are opening and I am seeing and listening to things I would have never done before.

[fep]

Hey Weswood, What part of So. Cal do you live?

I've struggle with the same question you're asking. Classical or Jazz... I've spent time with both. I'm going to continue to pursue both.

Classical... an beautiful piece played well can really touch a listener in a very emotional way. Imagine a wedding and a well played classical piece and many a tear is shed.

On the other hand, I don't care for the attention to detail that often is part of classical guitar. Spending 6 months perfecting one difficult piece is just not for me.

On the other hand, I sure like writing my own pieces for classical guitar.

Jazz... in addition to mastering technique you need to have a bunch of theory/fingerboard/chord/arrpegio/scale knowledge; way beyond what is necessary to play classical guitar. I like that challenge. And there is a constant creative journey when playing jazz (i.e. you don't stick strickly to the notes as written as in classical). Also, jazz chops translate easily to pop and rock... which means more opportunities to play in bands and in front of audiences.

[Banksia]

There are a few answers here:
fep is right about jazz knowledge being more transferrable into other styles. I've known classical players whose playing was so stiff and wooden you wouldn't want them playing other styles.

When you say that Classical players have an almost spriritual bond with the music, in my experience, this is true of any good musician. While the Jazz tradition may not be as old, it is definitely more relevant. Don't forget that there is no long running history of "classical" guitar. Until 100 years ago it was a peasant instrument used for playing "common" music.

I think the anxiety is a separate issue. There have been so many musicians with drug and alcohol addictions and mental problems that anxiety is not genre-related.

[wordsmith]

...but without that horrible teacher!

Why not?

[mrbeantheconqueror]

I am not sure what you meant by spiritual and philosophical aspects and approaches towards classical guitar but from what I can infer, if one looks deep into the particular genre of music that he is playing, any music genre does possess and need this spiritual and philosophical approach.

But as you have described, you have already said that you like Jazz and contemporary style of music. The most important thing now is to ask you what you truly enjoy. To be able to work hard towards what you really enjoy is the greatest thing. To overcome your anxiety, I think you really need a lot of practice. If you have done enough practice and feel confident, then will you ever feel anxious? If you believe that you right hand is very weak, you can try to go through classical right hand practices such as those found in Pumping Nylon. I did the Mauro Giuliani Right Hand studies and I am amazed at how much it has helped me. So I am suggesting you to go through the book.

[weswood88]

Thanks guys, your responses were very helpful, I can see this is a very friendly enviroment and I am glad I chose to come here.

First of all, I would like to say that alot of the anxiety I endured was probably due to the fact that with very little to no classical skill, I was taught a simple song, and put up in front of class, in a music majors program, every month, to play that song with only a short times practice of classical technique and etiquette. I had been playing with a pick for 4 years, and at the time, was not even sure what my major was going to me. Like I said, this teacher wanted me to get free lessons from him, so he had me enroll it what I later found out was a Music Majors program. When I am up there with my electric guitar though, I dont feel quite so nervous, because there isnt as much pressure to play every note exactly as it was composed, and I am already really used to the steel string and picking style of playing guitar.


As far as classical guitar's short history, you are right. It's only become a true classical instrument and respected in the classical community in the last 100 years, thanks to Segovia. It does pretty much seem like that classical guitar has its own seperate culture from the rest of the classical world, but at the same time, I think alot of the cultural and spiritual ideals stemmed from the music written on more traditional classical instruments.

I dont think I ever really wanted to get to the point where I was playing complex pieces at a stuffy classical orchestra. I am in a amateur classical guitar ensemble, and I have to say, I don't think it could get much more fun than this. We have fun even when we mess up, the fact that were not completely anal about our pieces and technique makes it fun and relaxed, though we do sound great and get the job done.

Anyways, I see alot of you have the same issue with choosing as me, I love both like I said, I think both are equally challenging in their own aspects. Jazz, improvisation and scale knowledge, where as classical is hugely demanding on sight reading (Alot of really great classical guitarists don't memorize their pieces, as they are so long and complex, so they must sight read through the whole song, which also takes a huge amount of skill)

I will probably stick with Jazz, just because I deeply feel that it is something I would be better at. I will eventually continue to take classical lessons so that I may play for my own enjoyment. I guess my issue with taking classical on the side is, if I do something, I want to do it correct, and well. I will take the classical ideals that I have learned, and that have helped me grow and to appreciate more styles of music, and apply that to ALL of my playing. Its Just sometimes It is hard to decide which mindset and road to take. Whether I want to be a great Jazz guitarist, or a great classical player.

[bkdavidson]

Weswood- As someone who rode out a classical guitar program but did everything to learn jazz, I've come to appreciate both sides. Classical, like you seem to have noticed, is very helpful for sight reading, although I've never known of a performance where the music wasn't memorized, at least for solos. My teacher in college made us memorize everything that was a solo performance, which actually helps improve memory. A 32-bar song form is a lot easier to tackle after an intricate, 13 page solo piece. Classical is also good for cleaning up technique in both hands. If you end up doing more jazz, the right hand might not come into play, but good classical left hand technique makes everything easier.

Jazz study helps with creativity and also translates into more current forms of music also. The big thing to watch out for in that is that you don't start trying to fit super-locrian scales and altered dominant chords into AC/DC songs. No matter how hard you try (and I've been there), it won't work. You won't sound sophisticated and intelligent, you'll sound arrogant, condescending, and totally moronic (again, been there, got burned, learned the lesson).

As far as performance anxiety, don't worry too much about it. I would get really bad performance anxiety with solo classical stuff as well. It's terrifying. Everything else you have people up there with youand most likely music to read from, and you can feed off their energy, even if it is a classical duet. With solos, there's nothing. Not even a music stand to hide behind. The first two songs on my junior recital sounded like I was sitting in a paint mixer. It was rough.

One thing to keep in mind is that we all tend to think the grass is greener on the other side. One of the former teachers where I work was fascinated with the classical stuff that I could do and could care less about blowing over real book tunes, and I was totally fascinated by the fact you could open a real book to any song, and he'd play it on sight like he knew it his whole life.

From your last post it looks like you're leaning towards jazz, but I would recommend studying a little classical to keep the reading chops up. Also, don't worry too much about the right hand. It took me about a year to be able to do anything with it, and another year to get comfortable with it. Lastly, about the whole "spiritual bond" thing, watch Stevie Ray Vaughan or Carlos Santana play or talk about their playing. There's not much more of a bond that that.

[timscarey]

Just dedicate some of your practice time to reading lead sheets and improvising on changes. But I say classical.

[franco6719]

Stay away from jazz. You will go nuts. (;

[franco6719]

Actually, I don't know the answer of which is best to study first and who gets the better education, etc. But it's an interesting question that I've often thought about from the perspective of someone non-classically trained.

I often regret especially the lack of fingerpicking discipline and training. Also, there is the ability to just "pop off" from memory some nice, beautiful piece of Mozart or whatever that EVERYONE recognizes and appreciates and then people would not say "Well, we don't understand that jazz stuff over here" (small-town part of Italy).

Originally Posted by franco6719

Actually, I don't know the answer of which is best to study first and who gets the better education, etc. But it's an interesting question that I've often thought about from the perspective of someone non-classically trained.

I often regret especially the lack of fingerpicking discipline and training. Also, there is the ability to just "pop off" from memory some nice, beautiful piece of Mozart or whatever that EVERYONE recognizes and appreciates and then people would not say "Well, we don't understand that jazz stuff over here" (small-town part of Italy).

Ah Franco... you don't understand American culture my friend (no offense). Unless you bring out your 'bubblegum pop' guns and play Britney Spears and the Jonas Brothers, people will have very little clue of what you are doing... The first day in my piano proficiency exam prep. class this year, the teacher played a bunch of little pieces that would be suitable for midterm recitals, one of which was Bach's Minuet in G major no.1. This is a class of 30 music majors mind you... but anyway, when the teacher asked if it was familiar, one person said "Isn't that a ringtone?".

I sincerely hope Italy isn't like that.

Take care,
Chris

Originally Posted by weswood88

I know this is probably a question you guys get all the time, but I think with each person his/her case may be different. I am very torn on which to study, and would appreciate some of your input. I am pretty much just starting out, I never learned music as a child, but I picked up and began playing rock guitar at 16, now 20 years old, I have been studying theory and music basics for the past year (since i was 19) and am torn between which to study.

I started out when I took a Class for guitar music theory in which a classical instructor taught, and for some reason, he was looking for students who were interested in becoming music majors, and getting private lessons. During the summer of last year he called me and for some reason chose me, wanting me to get into it. So I agreed and spent a semester studying basic classical, although struggling with my right hand technique and playing alone in front of others. I slowly got better at it but I seemed to have an issue with playing for this specific instructor, as he was very strict and impatient.

I didnt mind the fact he was strict, I felt it was good for me, but I wasnt getting the hang of the right hand technique, and repitoire that I could play easily at home alone, would end up coming out off tempo and alot of times, playing for him, I would completely mess up the piece, he would get extremely irritated with me. I eventually just told him it wasnt for me, and am now taking up Jazz basics with an incredible Jazz guitar instructor. But sometimes I wonder if I should have stuck with classical longer, but then other times I feel that Jazz is a more personally expressive music style.

Now that you know a little more about me, I can probably pose my questions now.

I think I like the structure of classical, the philisophical and spiritual aspects of classical as well. I also feel I like the virtuosity that classical players achieve. But at the same time I like Jazz and lots of other more contemporary styles of music.

What I want to know is A) Is there a spiritual and philisophical approach to Jazz like there is with classical guitar. Many Classical musicians seem to have an almost spiritual bond with their music, the music flows through them, and I really admire that. B) in your educated oppinion, for someone who has a history of being anxious which style of music would be better for me?

any input you guys can give me would be really appreciated and sorry for the long backstory, I just have such a huge love for all aspects of music, I feel that i have begun a spiritual awakening towards music of my own, my eyes are opening and I am seeing and listening to things I would have never done before.

I'm currently doing both. I'd say officially major in jazz, and study as much classical as you can tolerate in your 'free time'. The technical benefits provided by classical are wonderful, and the right hand techniques are very liberating for chord melodies and hybrid picking-comping. I love working on pieces that I like (A lot of Bach, some Renaissance lute stuff, Villa Lobos Etudes, Barrios' work...), but I hate having to shed the same Carcassi etude for 5 weeks that isn't that interesting in the first place. I'm told that I need to build the basics, but I figure that working out of Iznaola's Kitharologus and doing guiliani right hand stuff covers that, and digging right into the hard stuff will give me the most benefit.

I think that classical also provides enough of the classicist technical perspective as well. I think that as guitarists, we either do the rusty cooley thing and pick 92 notes per second on one string and don't listen to what our ears tell us, or are content with technical limitation on what ideas our ears give us. For me, the ideal is to have enough technique to execute any idea I hear, and to hear any ideal I want to execute. I find Steve Morse cross string exercises to be great for development of right hand electric technique btw...

Anyway, I hope you find SOME insight in that clustered, ADD-filled message

Take care,
Chris

[fast1]

Originally Posted by franco6719

Stay away from jazz. You will go nuts. (;

why do you say that?

[franco6719]

Originally Posted by CC323

Ah Franco... you don't understand American culture my friend (no offense). Unless you bring out your 'bubblegum pop' guns and play Britney Spears and the Jonas Brothers, people will have very little clue of what you are doing... The first day in my piano proficiency exam prep. class this year, the teacher played a bunch of little pieces that would be suitable for midterm recitals, one of which was Bach's Minuet in G major no.1. This is a class of 30 music majors mind you... but anyway, when the teacher asked if it was familiar, one person said "Isn't that a ringtone?".

I sincerely hope Italy isn't like that.

Take care,
Chris

Actually, it's worse that that over here these days. I once asked one of my cousins if they knew anything about jazz and they said "You mean Guns n' Roses." Western civilization is dying, I tell you. DYING!!|

[franco6719]

Originally Posted by fast1

why do you say that?

Just a joke.

[Joe Dalton]

shrug.
If I asked a lot of great musicians about impresionism I'd probably get some silly responses too. Don't think it's such a big deal, musicians are like dentists, a dentist thinks teeth are the most important part of the body, musicians think music is the most important part of life.
Jazz is a fragment of music, which is a fragment of culture.

People often put down the Jonas Brothers for some reason, but their music is connecting to a great number of people. Whether it's complicated doesn't matter.

[franco6719]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalton

shrug.
If I asked a lot of great musicians about impresionism I'd probably get some silly responses too. Don't think it's such a big deal, musicians are like dentists, a dentist thinks teeth are the most important part of the body, musicians think music is the most important part of life.
Jazz is a fragment of music, which is a fragment of culture.

People often put down the Jonas Brothers for some reason, but their music is connecting to a great number of people. Whether it's complicated doesn't matter.

Yes, but this forum is not about impressionism and painting. It's the JAZZ GUITAR forum. Let the impressionists complain on their own forum.

[franco6719]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalton

shrug.
People often put down the Jonas Brothers for some reason, but their music is connecting to a great number of people. Whether it's complicated doesn't matter.

I have never complained about the Jonas Bros. Who are they anyway?

Originally Posted by Joe Dalton

shrug.
If I asked a lot of great musicians about impresionism I'd probably get some silly responses too. Don't think it's such a big deal, musicians are like dentists, a dentist thinks teeth are the most important part of the body, musicians think music is the most important part of life.
Jazz is a fragment of music, which is a fragment of culture.

People often put down the Jonas Brothers for some reason, but their music is connecting to a great number of people. Whether it's complicated doesn't matter.

Does connecting to the lowest common denominator count as artistic satisfaction? If it does, nothing wrong with it then.

[Joe Dalton]

*shrug* I would say it's fair to argue the same about jazz. Much fewer people find it pleasant sounding, one of the main atributes of good music. It's only harder not better, if we argue about merrit of music a jazz musician will have a different opinion than a rock musician. Better or worse to me is a pointless stance to take.

Originally Posted by Joe Dalton

Much[sic] fewer people find it pleasant sounding, one of the main atributes[sic] of good music. It's only harder not better, if we argue about merrit[sic] of music a jazz musician will have a different opinion than a rock musician.

Man, where'd you get that definition of good music? Bach almost disappeared out of the public eye for several decades, and may never have been rediscovered had it not been for Frederic Chopin finding him. Does that mean that Bach wasn't good music because it didn't conform to 'classical' era standards and people weren't as interested in it?

Of course people have different standards. However, I don't think that many rock musicians would express their feelings toward the Jonas Brothers and other commercial pop groups as being positive. Just as Jazz musicians will generally look at Kenny G playing over Louis Armstrong tunes as sacrilege... Among serious musicians, the general concensus is that commercial music, regardless of aesthetic or genre, isn't the creme of the crop, to put it lightly.

I, however, am not in anyway trying to say that you're wrong for liking the Jonas Brothers and other commercial groups in the same vein. To each his own. I just don't really understand why you're adamantly defending them as equally musical as the jazz greats on The Jazz Guitar Forum.

Take care,
Chris

[bkdavidson]

No one ever told Franco who the Jonas Brothers are.

Franco, the Jonas Brothers are a trio of brothers over here in the States that are your basic, run-of-the-mill, bubblegum pop group. One of them has a guitar when he's on stage and the other two don't. They're sort of the male counterpart to Hannah Montana, if you know who that is. They're sort of manufactured by the Disney Channel and sell lots of records and concert tickets to 10-14 year-olds, and are very popular to hate amongst us "real" musicians.

[Stringbean]

There are 15 posts, and 8 topics here mentioning the Jonas. I gotta hand it to them (disney?) for breakin way over here at the jazz club. Not too shabby.

[fep]

Originally Posted by bkdavidson

No one ever told Franco who the Jonas Brothers are.

Franco, the Jonas Brothers are a trio of brothers over here in the States that are your basic, run-of-the-mill, bubblegum pop group. One of them has a guitar when he's on stage and the other two don't. They're sort of the male counterpart to Hannah Montana, if you know who that is. They're sort of manufactured by the Disney Channel and sell lots of records and concert tickets to 10-14 year-olds, and are very popular to hate amongst us "real" musicians.

And they performed with Stevie Wonder on a couple of songs at the grammies

[bkdavidson]

Isn't it awesome that someone's question about whether to take a jazz or classical path in his studies has turned into us telling our Italian friend who the Jonas Brothers are?

[Banksia]

Not just Italians! I had no idea who the Jonas Brothers were/are.(Probably shouldn't use present tense when referring to mass-market pop idols. They may already be "soooo 10 minutes ago!!")

In fairness to the mass-product music business, it does employ a lot of musicians who can then afford to indulge in jazz, classical, etc. Celine Dion has probably fed more violinists than many Symphony Orchestras. And back in the lean jazz period of the early 60s guys like Johnny Smith, Barney Kessel and Howard Roberts did pretty well out of the Top40, even though their names never appeared there.

Some people will use their pop fame fame to launch more substantial careers. One guy from Australian Idol used his boost to go to Memphis and record an album of all his favourite soul from the 60s using original musicians from those tracks. As a lover of 60s Motown, Atlantic and Stax, I find that a wonderful way to spend your money.

[Joe Dalton]

Originally Posted by CC323

I, however, am not in anyway trying to say that you're wrong for liking the Jonas Brothers and other commercial groups in the same vein. To each his own. I just don't really understand why you're adamantly defending them as equally musical as the jazz greats on The Jazz Guitar Forum.

Take care,
Chris

I wouldn't say I listen to them, but the notion that one genre of music is better isn't a very artistic one. I would say on a jazz forum, with a genre that prides itself (more than any) on being artistic, to dismiss art that doesn't fit your style is pretty silly. No song simpler than knocking on heavens door by Bob Dylan, made as a movie soundtrack and much much less complex than any Jonas' Brothers tune. Noone really complains about it's merrit.

[franco6719]

Originally Posted by bkdavidson

No one ever told Franco who the Jonas Brothers are.

Franco, the Jonas Brothers are a trio of brothers over here in the States that are your basic, run-of-the-mill, bubblegum pop group. One of them has a guitar when he's on stage and the other two don't. They're sort of the male counterpart to Hannah Montana, if you know who that is. They're sort of manufactured by the Disney Channel and sell lots of records and concert tickets to 10-14 year-olds, and are very popular to hate amongst us "real" musicians.

I've been off the net for a few days, due to a computer virus infection. I was amused by the discussion here. Anyway, I was born in the US and only reside in Italy for the last ten years. I just don't keep careful track of the commerical/pop music scene. I looked up Jonas Brothers on Wikipedia, though, and found I don't mind their music, so much as their fundamentalist sort of political and theological views.

On the substantive topic, we seem to get into the usual philosophical puzzles about subjectivity vs. standards, and so on. I do agree that one genre (i.e. jazz) cannot and should not be classified as "better" just because it is more complex. Jazz is not better than rock or classical or country and classical is not better than progressive fusion or whatever.

On the other hand, there must be some standards. The fact that something is commericially successful, in any case, does not necessarily say anything about it's artistic or moral value. Take, for example, all the recent discussions about hip-hip. It seems that many of the first-generation hip-hop artists and people who know a lot about hip-hop music insist that their music has been hijacked by corporate executives who only allow the publication of the worst stuff with the most angry and hateful lyrics because "controversy sells". It seems that there IS something about modern capitalism that allows for the artifical generation of demand (via subtle brainwashing) of whatever music that the people in power find to be useful and most lucrative. Now, this is ANTI-art, I have to say. But the situation is what it is.

[Joe Dalton]

People said Bebop was the death of jazz, rap was the death of music, rock was satans music, etc etc.
To me it seems as long as the last generation keeps saying the new music is dreadfull and everything is going down the shitter, it's still going in the right direction, if the last generation is satisfied that's when I'd worry.

[franco6719]

On the other hand, an 18-year-old friend of mind says that everything has gone down the toilet in all of the arts and it is the fault of James Joyce (almost 100 years ago). (;