Classical guitar studies along with jazz studies

[Kochavi]

I recently started taking a weekly classical guitar lesson along with my weekly jazz lesson. I find it very enriching, to my general guitar playing and my jazz playing in specific too. The technical work of the classical (well, mostly the left hand) is very specific and minuet, and is a great benefit. My teacher could name my technical problems straight away, along with the proper solutions. Also, there is a great meaning given to the sound you produce, which I haven't encountered in my jazz lessons.

Well, I blabbered enough.. I mostly want to know who shares the same boat with me, and what is your thought about it. What are your thoughts about the two getting along together? Did it improve your jazz playing? Also I would like to hear what the ones that doesn't learn classical have to say about the subject, and their thoughts about it. Thanks

[fumblefingers]

i think that they can reinforce each other. but both are time consuming. you can do both but will need to pick a "lead dog" if you haven't already.

right hand work on each is a special area.

[Kochavi]

Jazz has always been my "lead dog", and I consider myself much more of a jazz player. But I agree you have to pick one.

And yeah, right hand is completely different, and the classical right hand has so much variety.. The things you can do are wonderful, and I would take that to Jazz if I liked the nails sound in Jazz liike Joe Pass. But again, every new thing you learn is enriching and meaningful.

[Zhivago]

I've did about a year of classical guitar, last year. I wasn't having jazz guitar lessons, but was studying by myself quite a lot.

I believe it was very important for my development. It gives you a new insight on music and guitar. The best thing is that I started to hear the voice movement in the chords much more clear than before, and that was great for comping.

If you have the time and can organize both activities, meaning, be able to study both, and take things from one to the other, it should be a very rich experience.

[Scott Abene]

I believe that the addition of just the classical fingerpicking skills alone are worth the price of admission when it comes to Jazz.

[mr. beaumont]

For enrichment, it can't hurt--the sightreading, the right hand control, the good technique, all of that will benefit your guitar playing.

If you envision yourself as a classical performer someday, you're gonna have to hope they invent the 36 hour day if you wanna keep up with jazz too.

[JohnRoss]

There's no such thing as learning too much. Classical guitar, jazz guitar, any other kind of guitar... Or any other instrument, come to that, especially the piano (when you have the time, of course), makes you much more rounded as a musician.

[Kochavi]

Yeah.. But I also think you need to watch out from over scattering. Especially if you have a little time issues (like myself) you have to keep a strict order of priorities in order to reach exellency. But exposure and experience in every style and technique is always good, and finally it comes down to your guitar playing, rather than your jazz guitar or classical guitar playing.

BTW, I found that classical has a lot to be taken to the Bossa, and latin, as they share many similarities. I also really want to take lesson from one of these brazilian guitar masters, that just seems so damn cool.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

I believe that the addition of just the classical fingerpicking skills alone are worth the price of admission when it comes to Jazz.

Exactly what I was thinking. Some jazz guitar players who dabble in finger picking (oh all, right, me!) limp along with their right hand.

[vado cabral]

Playing classical music is great for technique, no doubt, as I started (and stpped, and started, and stopped - well, you get it), but I found out it stands in the way of being a improviser, this being my goal.
There is a great brazilian pianist, Nelson Freire. In his last DVD he says that the only ones he envies are jazz musicians, that are so involved and having so much fun with the music, especially The Elf, a.k.a. Errol Garner. But in happiness and joy, he is a cut above.
Playing Bach and Beethoven was good for my technique, no question. But one can get tired, and create more.
'nuff said

[JohnRoss]

Yeah.. But I also think you need to watch out from over scattering. Especially if you have a little time issues...

Quite agree, if you have time problems, you need to know your own priorities. But on the other hand, if becoming a musician were instantaneous and effortless, everyone would do it.

...but I found out it stands in the way of being a improviser...

Not necessarily, depends on where you get hung up. I think what happens is that classical music/guitar learning tends to be intensely structured, teachers have the constant aim of getting the student to the next level, pieces are progressively graded for exams, plus classical learners tend to have orthodoxy thrust on them, because it is efficient in that kind of forced progression. For example, you need a really full tone if you're in front of an examiner. When you want, though, you can ease back on the tone production (especially if you're amplified), and concentrate on other things. Heck, you can play jazz on anything from a comb and tissue paper to a French horn, how are you not going to be able to do it on a classical guitar?

[saponsky]

As Alba Nydia Velazquez (a puertorican writer) said one day... "The more I learn about speaking french, the more I learn about my native language."

[fep]

I think what happens is that classical music/guitar learning tends to be intensely structured, teachers have the constant aim of getting the student to the next level, pieces are progressively graded for exams, plus classical learners tend to have orthodoxy thrust on them, because it is efficient in that kind of forced progression.

+1

I also think what JohnRoss says is what led me away from classical guitar lessons.

And that is: I like to think of music as a creative endevour and my experience with my classical guitar teachers (I've had two) was that learning/playing classical guitar wasn't creative at all. I remember bringing classical guitar pieces that I wrote to the teachers; they weren't interested at all. Rather, they were dismissive of composition and just wanted to get back to their structured pedagogy. For me they completely missed the most important point of music.

Classical guitar can be so creative, all you have to do is include composition. I love composing for classical guitar. If I could have found classical guitar teacher that was into teaching composition for the instrument I would have been very happy.

[bkdavidson]

I think there's a certain element of grass being greener on the other side with this. I have a performance degree for classical, and constantly regret not having gone through a jazz program. Having a classical background impresses people, but it didn't help my improvisation, and I can't do a solo arrangement of a song to save my life. I know my way around a guitar well enough to come up with some interesting chord-melody arrangements, but I can't solo with chords. Some people have mentioned that classical training helps out your reading. That is definitely true, because I do feel like I read better than most guitarists I've met that aren't classically trained (I'm really sorry for that statement. I don't know how to state that w/o sounding totally arrogant). However, I would trade some of that to have the 24 karat gold ears that a lot of jazz musicians have.

[Sailor]

I am a classical guitarist first...college degree....took no jazz classes. Now, twenty years later I am OBSESSED with Swing, Bossa, Songbook stuff.

I find it hard to do both. Nail length, guitar position,....having a hard time putting down one instrument and picking up another. Right now I'm just trying to keep up my classical chops,(not learning much new stuff), as I learn the jazz guitar.

The PICK!! Haven't touched one in twenty years....it's fun, and better for my carpal tunnel...and I love not having to sit in the uncomfortable classical position. I AM thankful for all the reading and theory that comes with classical though, although a lot of it doesn't translate to jazz!!

I'll keep doing both, but I think my heart is in the electric guitar/jazz ballad world....wish I started a million years ago!!!

Sailor

[Kochavi]

I think classical experience is really teacher depndent. I mean, there are many teachers who are very narrowminded and like you to do everything like the book, but there are many who aren't like this, and I think sometimes people rule it out because of one bad experience thay had. For example, my teacher and I always have an open discussion about the musical approach towards the piece, or fingerings, etc. I bring my own ideas and apply them. I think classical can be very creative even when not involving composition. There are many ways to play a piece, and you can play it your own way.

[fep]

I think classical can be very creative even when not involving composition. There are many ways to play a piece, and you can play it your own way.

Classical can be very creative without involving composition?

Are you're talking about changing a piece by adding parts/sections that you wrote, changing pitches and rhythms. Then I'd say that is composition.

If you're just talking about phrasing and feeling and techniques chosen... I don't consider that "very creative", to me that's just the craft of playing classical. (fingering choices being musically creative? no way I can consider that part of musical creativity)

Maybe our definitions of musical creativity are different.

Just consider what is discussed when you take classical lessons, my experience is it's about technique and interpretation.

In classical music you play what's written, any interpretation is pretty minor and largely involves phrasing and dynamics and even still most musicians are trying to play as the composer intended. There's nothing wrong with that, not every musician has to be creative.

But you can be a classical musician and be very creative, just do composition.

I think what we are discussing here is important when deciding what type of music studies you want to pursue. If being creative is a goal... then that should be considered when choosing your area of study.

[paraguitar]

Having spent most of the last 40 yr on classical, I am moving to add jazz and chord melodyfor a less structured, and perhaps more "musical" experience. I agree that classical guitatrists don't seem to have as much fun performing as jazz guitarists, but the challenge is in the technique, reading and discovery of the composers intentions. Oh and fingerpicking really helps the tone for jazz. Enjoy the journey!

[fumblefingers]

studying "true" classical (Carcassi, Sor, Mozart, Bach, Guiliani) is one thing. these require a focused and dedicated committment to the style and technique.

playing "classic guitar" is another. what i mean is, playing Sagreras' studies and Brouwer's studies and compositions is a lot closer to playing solo jazz guitar than playing 17th and 18th century music. these two composer/guitarists make extensive use of modern devices. Sagreras in particular challenges you to play a moving bass with modern harmonies and a melody line on top. His studies are progressive and don't surprise the player with large gaps in difficulty between studies. finally, they're Latin which is also applicable to a jazzer's practice.

[Zhivago]

studying "true" classical (Carcassi, Sor, Mozart, Bach, Guiliani) is one thing. these require a focused and dedicated committment to the style and technique.

playing "classic guitar" is another. what i mean is, playing Sagreras' studies and Brouwer's studies and compositions is a lot closer to playing solo jazz guitar than playing 17th and 18th century music. these two composer/guitarists make extensive use of modern devices. Sagreras in particular challenges you to play a moving bass with modern harmonies and a melody line on top. His studies are progressive and don't surprise the player with large gaps in difficulty between studies. finally, they're Latin which is also applicable to a jazzer's practice.

The thing is, that it's not about how the harmonies go... but how do you approach the study.

I don't believe there is such a thing as "true classical" for certain pieces, as there is no "true jazz" for certain standards. If you approach Brouwer, Sor, Villa Lobos, etc as a classical player, focusing on the voices, timbre, classical technique, then you're playing classical guitar. Even though Brouwer is much more modern than Sor, doesn't mean it's less classical. In fact, with Brouwer, the technical focus is very important, and of course the style...

[fumblefingers]

thats not consistent with musical history my friend.

the classical period ended in the early 1800s. late Beethoven, early Schubert and all that.

the term is used broadly before and after that to refer to European Art Music.

Renaissance
Baroque
Classical
Romantic
Impressionistic
20th century

the classic guitar technique (used today) is basically the same throughout but the music is certainly not.

[JohnRoss]

If you're just talking about phrasing and feeling and techniques chosen... I don't consider that "very creative", to me that's just the craft of playing classical.

Not one, but two "justs!" Just? That's like saying "improvisation is just making it up as you go along," or "jazz is just variations on a theme." Surely appreciation of one kind of music, like jazz, should not mean being dismissive of any other kind of music, quite the contrary.

In classical music you play what's written, any interpretation is pretty minor and largely involves phrasing and dynamics and even still most musicians are trying to play as the composer intended.

That would be one way to interpret a piece, and a noble one. There are plenty of other approaches.

But you can be a classical musician and be very creative, just do composition.

I am surprised to see this argument in the context of a jazz forum, because there's an essential flaw in it which I would have thought was obvious. If the quality of jazz improves with the proficiency of the player, and improvisation gets better the more the player learns, is it not evident that composition is a related but separate skill? However much an unpractised composer tries to be original, he is unlikely to succeed because the foundations are not in place. Instead of being original, he will produce something very much like the kind of stuff that every novice composer writes - it takes years of study before you can get to be properly creative as a composer. A classical musician, though, acquires the basics of being creative in his interpretation - the expression, tone, phrasing and dynamics which you for some reason think are trivial - from Day 1. So the skilled interpreter is creative in a way the unskilled composer cannot be.

[fep]

Not one, but two "justs!" Just? That's like saying "improvisation is just making it up as you go along," or "jazz is just variations on a theme." Surely appreciation of one kind of music, like jazz, should not mean being dismissive of any other kind of music, quite the contrary.

I'm not be dismissive and my using "just" was a bad choice of words. I consider performing classical music by a talented classical musician as a high from of art, and that proper phrasing and dynamics and intepretaion can be magical. I think it's a great choice as an area of study.

Nowhere did I say that playing jazz was superior to playing classical.

I am surprised to see this argument in the context of a jazz forum, because there's an essential flaw in it which I would have thought was obvious. If the quality of jazz improves with the proficiency of the player, and improvisation gets better the more the player learns, is it not evident that composition is a related but separate skill? However much an unpractised composer tries to be original, he is unlikely to succeed because the foundations are not in place. Instead of being original, he will produce something very much like the kind of stuff that every novice composer writes - it takes years of study before you can get to be properly creative as a composer. A classical musician, though, acquires the basics of being creative in his interpretation - the expression, tone, phrasing and dynamics which you for some reason think are trivial - from Day 1. So the skilled interpreter is creative in a way the unskilled composer cannot be.

I'll have to disagree with that. I don't consider an interpretation of someones music to be very creative. Again, I believe intepretation can be high art in the hands of an expert classical musician.

It could be just a matter of definition. In a musical context I believe my definition has merit. I don't recall anyone after seeing an artist perform a brilliant interpretation a classical piece; refer to that artist's performance as being highly creative.

I also said nothing about being "properly creative", whatever that means. I'm simple talking about creativity. Is a child building a sand castle not being "properly creative" because she is unskilled?

I do consider composing music to be creative... and it has nothing to do with quality. It can be crap and not high art in the hands of the unskilled. But even if it's crap it's still creative. I'm not saying being creative and composing is better or worse than interpreting and performing; but it's definately different.

I'm not a skilled composer but I have set being creative as one of my goals. You don't have to be an expert to compose, and you get better with practice. All you have to do is create. I believe it's good for the mind and soul. Also, working on compostion skills can send you down musical paths that will benefit your performance skills.

Improvisation - I consider that a seperate discussion, but I do agree with you that it is seperate but related to composition.

[JohnRoss]

I'm not be dismissive and my using "just" was a bad choice of words.

OK, sorry, maybe I'm being touchy.

t could be just a matter of definition. In a musical context I believe my definition has merit. I don't recall anyone after seeing an artist perform a brilliant interpretation a classical piece; refer to that artist's performance as being highly creative.

Umm, now you're making me doubt myself a little, I confess I don't get to speak English as often as I would like. But aren't great interpreters like Karajan or Segovia considered creative?

I also said nothing about being "properly creative", whatever that means. I'm simple talking about creativity. Is a child building a sand castle not being "properly creative" because she is unskilled?

Yes and no and I hope we don't start going round in circles, here. The child is exercising its creativity, but as it is an untrained creativity, every child builds the same sandcastle. To put it another way, the child is being creative, but not from the observer's point of view (doting parents aside). That's what I meant by "properly" (and perhaps it is me who is picking hs words carelessly, now) because, generally speaking, music is "for" the listener, rather than the player or composer.

All the best with your compositions.

[franamico]

You might also want to have a look at some Martin Taylor's transcriptions.