Learning Jazz Makes You a Better Classical Player

[Tal_175]

[Greywolf]

I think learning and listening to Jazz makes you a better musician. It expands your harmonic pallet.
I came from a classical background, and Jazz has inspired me for the last 50 years.

[grahambop]

He makes some good points, although if a classical guitarist is not playing with good time or is not able to get ‘beyond the dots’ and feel and communicate the music more expressively, I wonder how well they have been taught (my teacher was very thorough on both of these points!).

I think there is also benefit going the other way, i.e. learning classical guitar first meant that when I got into jazz, I could already read music, knew the basic scales and arpeggios, and had good LH technique for playing complex lines (and good RH technique for playing fingerstyle jazz guitar).

[Tal_175]

Yeah, I wonder how much of Greg O’Rourke’s gaps during his classical years are representative of high-level classical guitarists in general. He mentioned three areas, and here’s how I understood them:

• Time feel. Classical guitarists, being solo players, can hide behind a loose notion of rubato and never develop a strong, consistent pulse. Jazz guitarists, by contrast, play in ensembles with rhythm sections which are an unforgiving environment for anyone with shaky time feel.

• Learning tunes. Classical musicians can rely on the manuscript and get away with not truly knowing their repertoire in the internalized, functional sense that jazz players are expected to (well except for those who are glued to their ipads on the band stand).

• Fretboard harmony. This was the most surprising one to me. His explanation wandered a bit: positional systems, hearing intervals, identifying chord progressions in Bach (which I can confirm from the few Bach pieces I’ve learned). Jazz musicians typically start with a progression, chord symbols, and some numeric analysis. You can practically feed a family with shell voicings and guide tones alone after that (or at least provide clean water). More harmonically sophisticated players can then reverse-engineer these abstractions into moving bass lines, inner voices, and melodic top lines, creating something less vertical and more orchestral.

This is the area where I always assumed classical guitarists had the advantage. Their repertoire is full of textures and voice-leading ideas that can be viewed as "creative animations" of vertical harmony. Meanwhile, jazz education often begins with simplified abstractions, leaving players to figure out arranging on their own. Classical guitarists, on the other hand, learn the sophisticated stuff but only perhaps left to their own devices just when it comes to learning the simple progression math.

[joe2758]

Jazz helped when I went to learn classical improv (in the traditional sense). Classical helped with technique and reading.

I would not suggest learning a style with the purpose to help with another style. You can just learn classical improv, you can just practice reading jazz heads, you can just practice jazz technique (including finger style).

They aren't entirely separate, but if you only like one style it is probably more efficient to just play that style (you can practice all the same weak areas)

[Tal_175]

Regarding that last point, jazz pushes guitarists to learn the fretboard through a chord oriented framework, relating melody intervallically to whatever chord is happening in the moment. That leads to the older approach of playing around chord shapes, and later to more formal systems like CAGED. Developing this kind of visualization takes real investment, usually a couple of years before it feels natural.

Years ago I picked up a book called "Fretboard Harmony," written by a classical guitarist as a text book for university classical guitar programs. The book is essentially about visualizing common practice harmony on the fretboard. I remember the author noting study of fretboard harmony in isolation is far more typical in jazz, and mostly absent from the classical curriculum. Classical guitarists tend to learn pieces in isolation, following the continuous internal logic of the composition.

The benefits of this kind of "harmonic quantization" perhaps are not immediately obvious in a classical context, and they are certainly not prerequisites for performance.

[joe2758]

What do you mean by "common practice harmony on the fretboard," and " harmonic quantization?" Was the author saying classical guitarists should be learning shapes, or that it is not useful?

[Tal_175]

What do you mean by "common practice harmony on the fretboard," and " harmonic quantization?" Was the author saying classical guitarists should be learning shapes, or that it is not useful?

By common practice harmony on the fretboard the author means things like learning intervals, triads and their inversions on the fretboard, understanding their functions and doing exercises such as figured bass realizations using these forms.

By "harmonic quantization" I meant, for example, breaking down Bach pieces such as the Cello suite 1 (played in the video) into discrete harmonic areas like ii V I's.

[joe2758]

Ah, ok well imo I would say common practice harmony on the fretboard is useful to the classical guitarist, and harmonic quantization is not (or at least time would be better spent elsewhere)

[Rob MacKillop]

Being a classical guitarist with a healthy interest and love of jazz, I spent a good part of my classical playing, teaching and promoting improvisation with the 19th-century repertoire, where we know that most players improvised, and all performers wrote their own compositions. I often lamented that 20th/21st-century players abandoned doing so. I used to teach advanced students at the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama to improvise preludes to pre-composed concert pieces, how and when to include improvised cadenzas, and even introduced them to figured bass reading. Some students complained to the Head of the String Department that this was not what they came to the Academy to study, but he gave me support. Some students really enjoyed it.

Here’s one of my videos of a piece by Giuliani, which I set up with a 30-seconds improvised prelude, and there’s also a cadenza just over half way through:

Did my knowledge of jazz harmony come into that? No, it was through a study of 19th-century sources, much of it detailed on my classical-guitar website here: 19th Century | rmclassicalguitar - but jazz players would very quickly realise that Giuliani and all other guitarists from that era loved to add a b9 to a V7 chord. They also loved re-spelling a V7 chord as an augmented 6th: G7 would be spelled GBDE# to move to F#Major, F#7, B Major - a great way to modulate from C Major to B Major or minor within one bar.

A couple of my harmony and improv videos aimed at nervous classical guitar players:

Again, some people appreciated them, others turned away. But once you get some familiarity with this stuff, you can easily find similar things developed further in the 20th-century works of Barrios, Lauro and others. The South-American repertoire gets closer to integrating jazz harmonies alongside developed classical harmonies.

I must say, I did meet a few advanced-level classical players who could not play me a I IV V in C Major. “It just never came up before”. Sigh.

[joe2758]

I agree exactly (I think) with Rob. Classical has its own tried and true methods and ways of thinking for improv, and it is much different than jazz.

Edit: Although, reading it again, I think in terms of sounds I agree-- but the way of thinking much more different

[Christian Miller]

I think there's definite overlap, not that I was looking for it especially.

With me it's more felt in solo guitar stuff, and composition, perhaps unsurprisingly.

[Christian Miller]

Some students complained to the Head of the String Department that this was not what they came to the Academy to study

Classic.

[Christian Miller]

By common practice harmony on the fretboard the author means things like learning intervals, triads and their inversions on the fretboard, understanding their functions and doing exercises such as figured bass realizations using these forms.

By "harmonic quantization" I meant, for example, breaking down Bach pieces such as the Cello suite 1 (played in the video) into discrete harmonic areas like ii V I's.

The historical improv people can get a bit on their high horse about this sort of stuff. I find it quite useful for blocking things down. It's a very lossy way of looking at music, but in terms of understanding building blocks at a high level I find it quite useful, and actually that's exactly how we use this in jazz.

That said, I'm not a huge fan of brute harmonic analysis in general. As I understand it, baroque music is really about rhetoric (at least that's what I was told), so things like the classic openers for preludes have a very established function within the form of the piece, much as you'd find in a play or a speech.

A V-I type progression in root position does a different thing rhetorically to the same chords in inversion - and then there's the typical melodic aspects.

So the opening of the cello prelude could be understood (imperfectly) in chord symbols as D, G/D (or E-7/D) A7/D, D - or I, IV/I V7/I I which is a variation of something that has been called a Quiescenza (which usually runs D D7 G/D A7/D)

Whatever you call it, it is very frequently used as an opener, certainly by Bach, but also by many others. It's also a very common way to close out a piece, often as a sort of coda or postlude after a big perfect authentic cadence.

So just understanding this from the perspective of harmony, is kind of lossy. It does a specific thing within the rhetoric and form of a piece of this type. So, if I'm going to improvise a baroque style piece - prelude, chaconne - even fugue - knowing that is important. And so many musical ideas can be generated, and have been generated, by ornamenting this simple framework.

But there's more of this in standards and even bop heads then you might think from jazz theory. For example, the melody resolving to 1 is kind of a big move functionally. I think the rhetoric of jazz is really underappreciated. That said, it's possible to intuit this stuff through a lot of exposure to the music. I suspect this was often the case back in the day, too.

[nyc chaz]

Segovia just saw the title of this thread and turned over in his grave.Bream on the other hand loved Django and could play his lines with ease.I honestly think it is just the opposite,a jazz player can benefit from learning good classical right hand technique when playing finerstyle on tunes.

[joe2758]

The historical improv people can get a bit on their high horse about this sort of stuff. I find it quite useful for blocking things down. It's a very lossy way of looking at music, but in terms of understanding building blocks at a high level I find it quite useful, and actually that's exactly how we use this in jazz.

That said, I'm not a huge fan of brute harmonic analysis in general. As I understand it, baroque music is really about rhetoric (at least that's what I was told), so things like the classic openers for preludes have a very established function within the form of the piece, much as you'd find in a play or a speech.

A V-I type progression in root position does a different thing rhetorically to the same chords in inversion - and then there's the typical melodic aspects.

So the opening of the cello prelude could be understood (imperfectly) in chord symbols as D, G/D (or E-7/D) A7/D, D - or I, IV/I V7/I I which is a variation of something that has been called a Quiescenza (which usually runs D D7 G/D A7/D)

Whatever you call it, it is very frequently used as an opener, certainly by Bach, but also by many others. It's also a very common way to close out a piece, often as a sort of coda or postlude after a big perfect authentic cadence (which is rhetorically different from an imperfect authentic cadence.) Take the prelude BWV999 for the minor version, for instance, which has one at the start and an interesting variation tierce de picardy variation at the end.

So just understanding this from the perspective of harmony, is kind of lossy. It does a specific thing within the rhetoric and form of a piece of this type. So, if I'm going to improvise a baroque style piece - prelude, chaconne - even fugue - knowing that is important. And so many musical ideas can be generated, and have been generated, by ornamenting this simple framework.

But there's more of this in standards and even bop heads then you might think from jazz theory. For example, the melody resolving to 1 is kind of a big move functionally. I think the rhetoric of jazz is really underappreciated. That said, it's possible to intuit this stuff through a lot of exposure to the music. I suspect this was often the case back in the day, too.

ah there it is lol your first post i was like "...that's it?"

[joe2758]

Segovia just saw the title of this thread and turned over in his grave.Bream on the other hand loved Django and could play his lines with ease.I honestly think it is just the opposite,a jazz player can benefit from learning good classical right hand technique when playing finerstyle on tunes.

Yeah I highly doubt Bream's jazz playing helped his classical in any way

[joe2758]

The historical improv people can get a bit on their high horse about this sort of stuff. I find it quite useful for blocking things down. It's a very lossy way of looking at music, but in terms of understanding building blocks at a high level I find it quite useful, and actually that's exactly how we use this in jazz.

I can't imagine going back to chord based thinking after you directed me toward partimento etc for classical improv...it's just better. I also can't imagine trying to use that for jazz..maybe some sort of fancy counterpoint but that is outlier stuff

[Tal_175]

I can't imagine going back to chord based thinking after you directed me toward partimento etc for classical improv...it's just better. I also can't imagine trying to use that for jazz..maybe some sort of fancy counterpoint but that is outlier stuff

Wait, I am confused. You also "agreed exactly" with Rob's post which included a video about using secondary dominant chords in classical improvisation.

[Christian Miller]

I can't imagine going back to chord based thinking after you directed me toward partimento etc for classical improv...it's just better. I also can't imagine trying to use that for jazz..maybe some sort of fancy counterpoint but that is outlier stuff

It's more in the compositions than in blowing on changes (at least, so it seems). Take something like Bill Evan's Waltz for Debby and tell me there isn't an overlap...

[joe2758]

You might have missed my edit:

"Edit: Although, reading it again, I think in terms of sounds I agree-- but the way of thinking much more different"

The secondary doms are stylistically correct, they just aren't conceived in that way.

[joe2758]

It's more in the compositions than in blowing on changes (at least, so it seems). Take something like Bill Evan's Waltz for Debby and tell me there isn't an overlap...

Sure, studying classical to add classical influences obviously makes sense

[Rob MacKillop]

He knows I cry if anyone disagrees with me

[paulkogut]

I think there's an important distinction to make between studying with a jazz guitarist and 'studying jazz'... I recall one student with a classical background I had when teaching as college adjunct. He could read/play pieces that, for example, had a scale passage harmonized in thirds, but couldn't play a C major scale in thirds in the abstract. He could read a guitar arrangement of a Bach violin piece, but couldn't play through the original violin score and add in appropriate bass notes to make his own arrangement.

We worked a lot on organizing the fretboard in a Mick Goodrick approach, (it was before the Almanacs, so it was all Advancing Guitarist) but he wasn't looking to hit the jam sessions, so there was no need to get a few Rhythm Changes heads together...

PK

[joe2758]

I'll sum up my point so I can leave everyone alone:

Classical improv is most efficiently done by the "high horse" methods (Bass) and supplementing it with jazz (chords) won't help, and vice versa.