Intermediate level jazz guitar

[fumblefingers]

I think these are good points.

There would be things like sight reading, rhythmic accuracy, time feel, tone, fretboard knowledge, chord voicings, etc, that are somewhat technical and easier to quantify. Then there are things that are tougher to quantify, like how the harmonic content of the improvisation relates to the history of jazz improvisation, the consistency in content through out the solo or the comp, development of motifs, interaction with ensemble, ability to respond, etc. We could list categories.

Then when you look at the super guitarist that gets a 10 in all elements, we might get some pretty boring music.

I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned, Berklee actually has a rating system, 1-8. You get rated on different categories, reading, improv, some others, I forget. From what I hear, the system can be pretty whack. The judgements can really vary from teacher to teacher based on their preferences and what they can hear. For example, I hear Nir Felder got poor ratings at Berklee.

Yep, they have 8 "levels" for performance majors (roughly 1 per semester for 4 years - make sense?). The proficiency barrier exam criteria for the first 4 levels can be found on the guitar dept. website in the handbook. ( I have a copy of all 8 levels. The upper levels are similar to the first 4 but require faster metronome settings and 3 octave techniques, among other differences).

The basic (semester end?) exams consist of technique, reading, and playing a tune (with improv no doubt). That's pretty darn similar to what ABRSM and RGT do, for classical and jazz both. Pedagogically speaking there is nothing about this at all.

Its true that different teachers may judge a student differently. Objectivity and fairness is a constant challenge for individual teachers and performance juries alike.

And no offense - but your statement about Nir Felder is very sketchy on details/specifics. It may be true, it may be false, but in the end can only be taken as hearsay. If true it's not that surprising really. As Reg said, standards are not necessarily for exceptional individuals where the creative arts are concerned. Many examples exist of artists who cared little for the usual conventions or standards. Instead, they may have opted for a singular vision or goal and let other matters fall by the wayside.

[mr. beaumont]

Cool! Maybe they could start posting player's levels on the backs of their CD's so I'll know whose are worth buying. Can we get professionalism standards so I can better screen anybody I play with too?

[JakeAcci]

Jake - no need to go deep on this one. It's simply a way to mark progress.

Measuring and marking progress is a part of just about any training or education process that one can think of, since time immemorial.

I think marking progress is useful, especially in descriptive ways, in categories, with solid criteria. Progress is progress towards a goal, so any measurement of progress has to be in relevance to that goal. Progress in a more general sense may be too vague to be useful, in my opinion.

I don't think there's much use in players trying to determine whether they are beginner, intermediate, or advanced. I don't think we get anything out of that process. If you disagree, what do you think we get out of that generic type of labeling?

Keep in mind, I'm not opposed to measuring progress, acknowledging abilities in specific fields (sight reading, fretboard knowledge, hitting changes,) it's the general labeling that I have a problem with.

[cosmic gumbo]

Anybody want to join me in jazz kindergarten?

[JakeAcci]

Anybody want to join me in jazz kindergarten?

I have to get out of the womb first.

[Dad3353]

Anybody want to join me in jazz kindergarten?

I'm tempted, if you'll promise not to pull my ponytail..?

[fumblefingers]

I think marking progress is useful, especially in descriptive ways, in categories, with solid criteria. Progress is progress towards a goal, so any measurement of progress has to be in relevance to that goal. Progress in a more general sense may be too vague to be useful, in my opinion.

I don't think there's much use in players trying to determine whether they are beginner, intermediate, or advanced. I don't think we get anything out of that process. If you disagree, what do you think we get out of that generic type of labeling?

Keep in mind, I'm not opposed to measuring progress, acknowledging abilities in specific fields (sight reading, fretboard knowledge, hitting changes,) it's the general labeling that I have a problem with.

i agree, there isn't much use in the 3 terms as such.

[cosmic gumbo]

In the end, it's how you sound and the music that you make...I hate to say it, but I've played with jazz grads that sounded like academic robots. That's why a piece of paper isn't worth much in the real jazz world.

[fumblefingers]

Cool! Maybe they could start posting player's levels on the backs of their CD's so I'll know whose are worth buying. Can we get professionalism standards so I can better screen anybody I play with too?

that's cute Jeff, but you missed it. the point was made about exceptions. furthermore this entire topic is aimed squarely at students, not pros and certainly not pros successful enough (and gifted enough?) to be recording artists of note.

but wait. on the other hand, how difficult is it to get the "big" guitar gig in the best bands or studios? do you have to read well? do you have to improvise well? and if we're talking about a jazz group, do you need to have a sizeable repertoire so tunes can be readily called? do you have to recognize all manner of song form and harmonic patterns to learn new ones quickly, and instantly perform them at a high level? do you have to contribute to the band's output with a little arranging or composing? how would one approach all of this if at the snot-nosed age of 18 they could not say "yes" to all of those questions?

Jeff - forget Berklee. If you were the guitar chair at a top music conservatory or accredited university of high reputation how would you run the contemporary/jazz guitar department? How would you ensure that the very highest standards were set and how would you avoid becoming a diploma mill? How would you keep your job if the other instrument department heads were graduating top flight musicians but you were fiddle farting around?

[Reg]

... probably some really good points. I just don't see the difference... Just because sight reading or being able to play some line at 220 is part of the rating categories... doesn't mean everyone need to put time into that skill... But don't you believe the student should at least be aware of the skills, and know what not developing those skills will lead to.

Most beginners and probably many intermediate level players don't know. I don't think personal ratings are for public display... their for students and or teachers to help adjust their lessons, practice... long term goals.

I may be wrong, but I would want my students to know what's expected to achieve different levels of musicianship. And if they don't fit the students temporary goal, at least their aware. It's easy to decide to only work on 5 out of 10 skills... as compared to working on 5 skills because that's all you thought there were.

I can tell you from years of experience watching young players become old players and changing their view point of what's important and what they wish they would have put more time into earlier.

If you don't like the terms... change them.

So there are a few teachers on this forum... how do your organize your lessons. What do you use as check points.
What do you use for helping students motivation...
Reg

[JakeAcci]

... probably some really good points. I just don't see the difference... Just because sight reading or being able to play some line at 220 is part of the rating categories... doesn't mean everyone need to put time into that skill... But don't you believe the student should at least be aware of the skills, and know what not developing those skills will lead to.

Most beginners and probably many intermediate level players don't know. I don't think personal ratings are for public display... their for students and or teachers to help adjust their lessons, practice... long term goals.

I may be wrong, but I would want my students to know what's expected to achieve different levels of musicianship. And if they don't fit the students temporary goal, at least their aware. It's easy to decide to only work on 5 out of 10 skills... as compared to working on 5 skills because that's all you thought there were.

I can tell you from years of experience watching young players become old players and changing their view point of what's important and what they wish they would have put more time into earlier.

If you don't like the terms... change them.

Yes, I agree with all of this completely. What fits with my world view is, instead of the generic idea of a jazz guitarist being at this level or that level, it's more useful to look at specific goals and what skills are required to achieve those goals. When it's determined (how ever roughly) what skills are required to achieve the previously determined goals, we can look at what level a player needs to be at with those skills.

I say this because the original poster is basically saying "am I intermediate? I can do x, y, and z." I just don't think there's a point in that. Like a lot of threads here, not enough information is given for the responses to be useful, in my opinion. Also just my opinion, the response can be detrimental...a focus on levels of achievement can often be an insecurity-filled distraction from the actual musical goals.

Maybe if I was one on one with edward74 I'd ask "what do you want to be able to do?" and go from there. If he wants to be a master of Aebersold play-alongs that is different than trying to get into Greg Osby's group, and that's different from being a chord melody master, etc etc.

[mr. beaumont]

that's cute Jeff, but you missed it. the point was made about exceptions. furthermore this entire topic is aimed squarely at students, not pros and certainly not pros successful enough (and gifted enough?) to be recording artists of note.

but wait. on the other hand, how difficult is it to get the "big" guitar gig in the best bands or studios? do you have to read well? do you have to improvise well? and if we're talking about a jazz group, do you need to have a sizeable repertoire so tunes can be readily called? do you have to recognize all manner of song form and harmonic patterns to learn new ones quickly, and instantly perform them at a high level? do you have to contribute to the band's output with a little arranging or composing? how would one approach all of this if at the snot-nosed age of 18 they could not say "yes" to all of those questions?

Jeff - forget Berklee. If you were the guitar chair at a top music conservatory or accredited university of high reputation how would you run the contemporary/jazz guitar department? How would you ensure that the very highest standards were set and how would you avoid becoming a diploma mill? How would you keep your job if the other instrument department heads were graduating top flight musicians but you were fiddle farting around?

First two years would be jazz...bottom half of students cut. Years three and four would be business courses.

As to my first "cute" comment in this thread, the way I see it, levels are only for personal satisfaction. The real truth is you're never good enough and theres always someone better. Keep practicing. You want some real skills that tell how good you are? Can you get a gig? Can you keep a gig? Do people call you when they need somebody? Are you reliable? Can you "fit the gig?"

If jazz is an academic course, then treat it as such. What's the point of college? So you can DO professionally what you like.

I'm a high school art teacher. Any of my students who show promise and want to go on to college for Art, I tell them to take business and web design classes. Learn how to market yourself. And, be the best at what YOU do, and own it.

Art schools unleash thousands of students on the world each year who do not have the skills to survive making a living off their art. The percentage of those who can make it on valor alone is very small. The rest better have some tools and be ready to bust their ass. "Advanced Intermediate" or whatever doesn't mean shit once you have a diploma and a running clock for when your first student loan payment is due.

[fumblefingers]

In the end, it's how you sound and the music that you make...I hate to say it, but I've played with jazz grads that sounded like academic robots. That's why a piece of paper isn't worth much in the real jazz world.

i have no doubt.

Cosmic - as of this stage you have been quite clear over time that you have a very dim view of the music school route, its costs, the prospects for work afterwards etc. i was a music major too, through the classical university training, the LA school institute training thing, the Berklee correspondence course way back when, and the Berklee online school more recently just for fun - and it was fun (albeit expensive).

But what can you say in the positive or active direction? Should these schools close? Should they cut their costs by 90% to ensure positive ROI for the students? Should they only allow top talent to enter? Should they change the pedagogy?

In your view, what is the solution, or what is to be done?

[fumblefingers]

First two years would be jazz...bottom half of students cut. Years three and four would be business courses.

ah. two years of music huh? no need for masters or Phd then? well, then to make it effective they would have to be pretty darned good to make the most of those two years, and to not get cut.

so,
1. how would you construct the entrance exam, and
2. how would you take an absolute beginner at 10 years old step by step to the point where they would pass that entrance audition? how would you measure progress between 10 and 18?

[cosmic gumbo]

In your view, what is the solution, or what is to be done?

At this point what can be done? There's no real market for jazz anymore, but if academia can make some bucks teaching it, I guess they should, since they're willing to sell an education for anything that has a market of students willing to pay. My disdain has to do with the totally naive students that dropped a fortune on jazz performance degrees without even bothering to check and see if there was a career at the end the tunnel. Art and commerce has always been a strange marriage at best.

[fumblefingers]

yeah. the OWS movement raised the issue of student debt in a down economy with downright depressing job prospects. i'm obviously not a fan of OWS but...

there has been some talk at the national level (WSJ article if memory serves) of holding universities a little bit more accountable for reducing the costs of degree programs that have long payback periods. i think that makes a lot of sense.

for example - traditional music theory, history, literature, acoustic science, basic conducting courses in particular are commodities as far as i'm concerned. they have been taught in a fairly consistent fashion over the decades. you can take these at a community college for a fraction of the cost of a university. (check Pasadena City College vs. USC for an example). it seems insane to me to pay private school tuition rates for these particular courses.

i don't begrudge universities for offering music degress, all the way through Phd levels though. you can probably teach lessons out of your home if nothing more. and you can marry someone who has a better job than you, hehe.

i've taken graduate engineering courses in recent years at a terrific private university (mostly paid for by my employer). these courses were ALL distance courses. most of them were running concurrently with the semesters that i took them and you could participate live online with the class if you so desired. or you could simply watch the video hours or days later. terrific! one particular course was simply videotaped "in the can" from a recent year. it was an excellent course that had lasting relevancy for at least a few years. the instructor was still engaged in the grading process, and answered questions via email too. i think that schools at all levels should look for oportunities to standardize and automate classes like this. while it would not work for some classes it could work for others. you could get some incredible economies of scale (smaller real estate footprint, more students, even smaller carbon footprint (OMG)). you would still need the instructors but could probably utilize some tutors too. that could support scale.

i'd rather see that concept implemented with education than health care.