Learning Jazz: Go all in or don't go?

[pkirk]

Yeah, I get that.

But I think the point about gear plays into that. Nobody's first electric guitar just starting to explore jazz should be a guitar set up just for jazz, not just because of the gear aspect, but also because of the reality of learning and life. I just don't know anybody who says one day: "Okay, time to start playing jazz" and then goes all-in hardcore and plays exclusively jazz. I mean, that is the posture of some of the forum posts on here, granted, but those guys are probably going to go down a winding road in reality. Maybe not.

In my experience, nobody just decides one day to start playing jazz and just jumps in the deep end. Every jazz guitar player I know jazz sort of happened to them. It was a process, and dabbling and wavering actually usually play an important part at the beginning of that process. I bet if you talk to most jazz players you know, they are all former dabblers.

My experience is the opposite. Every competent jazz player I know decided more or less overnight (Ok, over the course of a few months) to dedicate their playing/practicing to jazz. That was certainly my case, and everyone I play with says the same thing. Typically one or two events turns them on to the path. It's essentially a calling. The majority of those that dabble eventually turn away from it, in my experience.

[Jonzo]

It is interesting to read this thread in the context of watching my son learn jazz violin. All of his jazz mentors--both violinists and non-violinists--have told him that he MUST continue to take classical lessons.

My other son plays double bass, and people seem less inclined to tell him that he needs to also study classical, but I do notice that it is giving him some advantages over the other bassist at his school. His technique is a lot more efficient.

It's the nature of the instruments, I guess.

[eccegeorge]

My experience is the opposite. Every competent jazz player I know decided more or less overnight (Ok, over the course of a few months) to dedicate their playing/practicing to jazz. That was certainly my case, and everyone I play with says the same thing. Typically one or two events turns them on to the path. It's essentially a calling. The majority of those that dabble eventually turn away from it, in my experience.

Oh yeah, I totally agree that there is that coming to God moment when you say, "Okay, from now on I am dedicating myself fully to jazz." Just, in my experience, it usually comes AFTER a period of dabbling. It's usually happens in four phases: 1. A blues or rock guy takes this lick or that, listens to this album or that, and becomes intrigued. 2. He tries to consider himself a partial jazz guitarist putting in the same amount of effort and sweat into jazz as he did with rock or blues. 3. He fails ever so miserably. 4. He either gives up or re-dedicates himself fully to jazz and has that coming to God moment you spoke of.

Obviously everybody is different, but that is the way it seems to go with most of the people I've gotten to talk to about it. I work at a community music school teaching the baby beginners, but for our advanced students, that's the path it usually seems to take. When they leave, most of them are still in the hybrid dabbling phase.

Anyway, to each his own. I just think, in our world, if a guy wants just to even dabble in jazz we should say go for it! Hopefully, he will get hooked. I don't see it as setting him up for failure, just setting him up for that initial failure that hopefully will make him double down.

I'm a drug dealer, and dabbling is the gateway drug. Once you get to the hard stuff, you're hooked for life.

[paulkogut]

Some instrumentalists have the benefit of having the traditional classical instrument be the same as the traditional jazz instrument.Violin, trumpet and piano come to mind, bass, you might start getting into string issues arco vs. pizzicato, and guitar it's just a whole different beast. Not that a study of classical guitar is a bad thing per se (I think Kenny Burrell was a classical major at Wayne State, and Jim Hall's studies with Vincente Gomez inspired him to lighten up from a typical .013 on his archtop to a lighter, more vibrato friendly set), but a flat fingerboard is designed to be friendly to a fingerstyle right hand, and has a very different feel than the typical left-hand friendly radius-ed boards of the electric. Enough cats play jazz on a nylon string to prove it's possible, but it's not one of the typical choices.

But as far as classical music goes, I don't know anyone in the jazz tradition that doesn't advocate for the Bach chorales, Kreutzer etudes, checking out the late Beethoven string quartets and whatever Stravinsky and Bartok were up to, as well as drawing inspiration from other traditions (Brazilian, Cuban, folk, blues, etc)

PK

[mr. beaumont]

Agreed. Inspiration can come from anything. In the end when we find our voice, its a sum of everything we've absorbed.

Mine's gonna have a lot of Jerry Garcia in it

[teok]

I once went to a clinic by guitarist Dan Faehnle (Joey DeFrancesco, Diana Krall, Marsalis brothers, Pink Martini) and he was asked how much he practices and his reply was "Even when I don't have a guitar in my hands, in my mind I think about music constantly. I just got back from vacation and while I was scuba diving looking at a coral reef I was composing a tune.". That's "all in".

[eccegeorge]

I once went to a clinic by guitarist Dan Faehnle (Joey DeFrancesco, Diana Krall, Marsalis brothers, Pink Martini) and he was asked how much he practices and his reply was "Even when I don't have a guitar in my hands, in my mind I think about music constantly. I just got back from vacation and while I was scuba diving looking at a coral reef I was composing a tune.". That's "all in".

Wow. Reminds me of a Wes Montgomery interview I once read where he said something along the lines of how he can't even go to the movies because, when he is in the theater and the movie is playing, all he can do is run through changes.

[NSJ]

Some instrumentalists have the benefit of having the traditional classical instrument be the same as the traditional jazz instrument.Violin, trumpet and piano come to mind, bass, you might start getting into string issues arco vs. pizzicato, and guitar it's just a whole different beast. Not that a study of classical guitar is a bad thing per se (I think Kenny Burrell was a classical major at Wayne State, and Jim Hall's studies with Vincente Gomez inspired him to lighten up from a typical .013 on his archtop to a lighter, more vibrato friendly set), but a flat fingerboard is designed to be friendly to a fingerstyle right hand, and has a very different feel than the typical left-hand friendly radius-ed boards of the electric. Enough cats play jazz on a nylon string to prove it's possible, but it's not one of the typical choices.

But as far as classical music goes, I don't know anyone in the jazz tradition that doesn't advocate for the Bach chorales, Kreutzer etudes, checking out the late Beethoven string quartets and whatever Stravinsky and Bartok were up to, as well as drawing inspiration from other traditions (Brazilian, Cuban, folk, blues, etc)

PK

Agree in general. I have to cite an exception, however, that is interesting to me. There was an amazing kid, a classical guitarist (who must now be 20 or 21) who studied with my old teacher for 10 years, from age 8 to 18. The kid is an incredible player--featured on WFMT as one of the teenage prodigies a couple years ago. He got a full scholarship to one of best music departments and universities in the US. At the time of his audition, the guitar professor at the school sent a note back to my teacher that this kid was the best player he has auditioned in his 20 plus years there.

I once asked my teacher if he ever taught him jazz as well as classical (he normally does this with many of his students). No, not with him. The kid was so good, hard working and dedicated, that he didn't want him to be of two minds. He wanted him to be singularly focused on his classical studies. Learning jazz, which my teacher always termed as "moving a mountain", would have been a huge distraction and diversion.

I guess the moral of the story is, when you're that good, it pays to to so uniquely focused.

On a semi-rated issue, I gave some thought about trying to pick up a 2nd instrument--alto sax. I got a cheap sax, some band books, practiced for a bit. And then gave it up. No way I can try to learn two instruments equally well.

[fumblefingers]

Go all in.

you should be able to dabble with other styles too. (Dabble, not dedicate).

going all in requires a lot of practice time regardless of style, of course. Taking on the responsibility to become a good or great improviser on top of that makes for a very daunting journey, but an enjoyable one.

[paulkogut]

Navdeep,

Thanks for sharing that story. I think I know your teacher, I've lost track of him in recent years, but the last time we spoke it felt like we were saying goodbye. Really glad that his health seems to have taken a turn for the better.

Given the demands of a concert-level classical career, I think it makes sense that Jack would keep him focused there instead of splitting his time between that and jazz. It seems a lot more common for jazz folk to study classical, for either a chops or compositional sense, than for classical folks to veer off their path. I've got a childhood pal that teaches both jazz and classical trombone at Eastman, I don't know too many other cats that played both at a high level from the get go.

PK

[zigzag]

I'm not in the same league with most of yoose guys, but when I caught the jazz bug, I couldn't listen to anything else, didn't want to learn anything else. That was only 12 years ago. You gotta jump in with both feet, but occasionally, it can do some good to come up for air. For guitar players, I'm listening to a lot of Satriani and Herring lately, but I also just dropped the Burrell/Coltrane CD in the car player. Just transcribed a Beck tune.

I still only have one guitar I would consider a jazz box. Like most people here, I'm also of the school that jazz can be played on almost any instrument.

[3625]

Guilty as charged. I wish I'd spent a lot less time transcribing Steve Vai when I was 16.

Every competent jazz player I know decided more or less overnight (Ok, over the course of a few months) to dedicate their playing/practicing to jazz. That was certainly my case, and everyone I play with says the same thing. Typically one or two events turns them on to the path. It's essentially a calling. The majority of those that dabble eventually turn away from it, in my experience.

I had an Ibanez Jem when I was 16, lol. In that period Steve Vai was to me the Guvnor - fun stuff! Around that time, I got hold of Harry Connick's 'It Had to be You' album where Russell Malone took this uptempo bop solo on 'It's Alright With Me' - straight away I was hearing something that drew me in. A few months later, the week I graduated high school I saw the movie Bird late one night on TV and pretty much knew that was what I was going to do with my life. I'm relatively happy with my playing these days (I'm 38) but it wasn't until about 5 years ago that I reached a point where I thought my playing didn't completely suck - cause it did. Jazz is hard for all but a gifted few.

[cosmic gumbo]

Jazz takes sacrifice, and you have to realize that the only real payoff you might receive is personal satisfaction as a musician. Just be aware, Joe Shmoe doesn't know or care how hard it is to play jazz, cuz he don't like that crap. Also, in the end, even for an advanced player, it may never pan out to be more than a hobby due to lack of opportunities, and I think that keeps a lot of guys from jumping in with both feet.

[ecj]

Agree in general. I have to cite an exception, however, that is interesting to me. There was an amazing kid, a classical guitarist (who must now be 20 or 21) who studied with my old teacher for 10 years, from age 8 to 18. The kid is an incredible player--featured on WFMT as one of the teenage prodigies a couple years ago. He got a full scholarship to one of best music departments and universities in the US. At the time of his audition, the guitar professor at the school sent a note back to my teacher that this kid was the best player he has auditioned in his 20 plus years there.

I once asked my teacher if he ever taught him jazz as well as classical (he normally does this with many of his students). No, not with him. The kid was so good, hard working and dedicated, that he didn't want him to be of two minds. He wanted him to be singularly focused on his classical studies. Learning jazz, which my teacher always termed as "moving a mountain", would have been a huge distraction and diversion.

I guess the moral of the story is, when you're that good, it pays to to so uniquely focused.

On a semi-rated issue, I gave some thought about trying to pick up a 2nd instrument--alto sax. I got a cheap sax, some band books, practiced for a bit. And then gave it up. No way I can try to learn two instruments equally well.

Incidentally, this is part of why the Marsalis brothers are so absolutely incredible.

Another guy to check out is Jacques Loussier who is equally gifted in both worlds, and what's more, figured out how to fuse them. I think he might be one of the best on the scene, and is generally underappreciated.

I still dabble with the classical guitar occasionally. I think it's still my favorite sound in the instrument world, but it just doesn't work that well with drums (IMO), and I can't deal with the nails.

[Gilpy]

I completely agree that to be a serious jazz player (or a serious anything) you have to immerse yourself. It takes more study and discipline than most people can handle. I am grateful that there exist people who are driven to excel at jazz and are willing to devote a large part of their lives to it.

I'm not one of those people. I'm one of those "dabblers". I love many kinds of music and could never restrict myself to one thing. I don't like it when people erect strict musical boundaries between styles and judge art by how it conforms to their rules. I like to mix it up. My goal is to be able to be creative in any genre that appeals to me, and to have fun doing it. That doesn't mean I'm too lazy to put the work in, just that I work at many things to try to be a complete musician.

Anyway, I think it depends on your personality, and I'm glad that there are both types.

[henryrobinett]

Yes, I agree - it's all in. But as to what defines jazz regarding what to study: It's all good. It depends on what we want to do. But the moment for reality becomes playing gigs with others. THAT'S what defines jazz. If we cannot share that language with others on the bandstand we should either expand the definition or maybe do something else? Or get our own band together?

Immersion happened with me a long time ago. There IS life too, which becomes reflected in the music. But at a certain point jazz has to become a full time, all consuming thing. A hobbyist can have fun and play with their friends with Real Books, but it goes and goes. Those moments may be too frustrating to be fully enjoyable. I don't know.

I know I have gotten frustrated with people who are merely guitar collectors or gear collectors and are consumed with getting the "tone," sometimes a watch word that avoids getting the "music." I mean its all good. It's what makes you happy, but the work is going to get you the music. That's the longer view. Even getting the tone requires so much more than getting the right guitar, amp or pedal. It requires getting the right hands.

[Nabil B]

My goal is to be able to be creative in any genre that appeals to me, and to have fun doing it.

It's all that really matters. If you're a dabbler and you manage to have fun playing jazz, it's all good. But if you're a dabbler and find playing jazz frustrating and difficult, then it's time to reassess the time you invest in it.

[ESCC]

I come from a family of professional jazz musicians from the 30s & 40s, I grew up surrounded by music. I can tell you first hand, musical talent, skill, comprehension isn't necessarily inherited! I love jazz, the biggest obstacle for me in learning jazz and understanding jazz is that Jazz defies logic! To me it is it's own shape, form and sound and learning it is as much of an awakening as it is a process. Upon realizing this, some individuals may be content just to dabble.

[Peter C]

Rather than dabble in Jazz, what I have done over the last few years is to open up to what this music has to offer me as a musician, both harmonically and technically. I sat down to study and embrace Jazzers' bare-bones approach to the instrument and I have to say that the kind of music I like to play and make up has benefited enormously.

Practically any guitar can be used to play Jazz style; strings are another matter, unless your name is Jack Pearson.

[Reg]

Henry brought up a good point about audience being part of the equation of jazz performance.

Personally, there is jazz common practice and if your not aware of what that is... your fooling yourself if you think your a jazz player. That being said... what's wrong with playing jazz tunes, even if your not a jazz player, it's interactive, great vehicle for using developed skills and musicianship... it's fun.

Generally most of the jazz musicians I've had the fortune to become friends with during my life... are a different group of people, even when they live what might be considered straight ahead normal life. Normal being somewhere in the middle, usually related to raising your kids and where you live.

Again personally... I can't remember any moment in my life where music, and generally Jazz influenced, wasn't part of the backdrop...I've always been a jazz player... who covers other music etc...

[DaveF]

In short, go all in.

[woyvel]

I'm not in agreement with the "all in" as being the only means of being capable of playing jazz guitar as a hobbyist or weekend warrior (that covers about 98% of us, doesn't it?".

I was told I should study jazz as a teen. I didn't love it all, but understood the reasons to study it, and came to really love some of it. Could I play some for fun? Sure, and I did. For gigs? No. Then for about 20 years I wasn't interested in jazz listening, and so not much in playing either.

About 5 years ago I got to a point where I decided that I needed to be able to play as a soloist. So I was studying, and now loving, chord solo technique and many traditional jazz standards. What I currently do in a solo set has songs from the 40's to now in a variety of styles, some you'd call jazz, some anything but. Can I make living at playing jazz? Not realistically. Can I play what I like to play well? I'd like to think so.

Oh, and doesn't metal guitarist Alex Skolnick "dabble in jazz"?

[LeftysBlues]

I just started again at 54 .I play the Saxophone - have been a pro in the 80s doing jazz/pop free stuff and standards,loads of residencies ,tours etc
I got back into Guitar mainly through being into Grant Green.
I feel that I,m getting better - done half a jimmy Raney solo and am working on Wolf Marshalls GG book.
I know all the standards on Tenor Sax.
In the 70s i played rock guitar as a kid then got into jazz.
I must say I struggled ,gave up,then took up saxophone and that seemed easier - for jazz phrasing
The rock thing is a lousy way to come to jazz - all those licks and box patterns,and time wise its not got a lot in common.
Jazz Guitar is truly difficult - time and phrasing are hard enough but we have 5 different middle Cs !.And all those fingerings , on sax you have just one key per note with a few exceptions.
Even after playing all those years on sax my phrasing is still lousy on guitar.
I am aiming to be pretty competent by age 60

[brightsize]

I couldn't agree more. Jazz is its own world... same way bluegrass is its own world, and country music, and rock and roll, and certain ethnic and national varieties of "world" music (what world?)

I went this route last summer when I started playing jazz. Stopped listening to pretty much everything except jazz, started playing only jazz. Loaded my axes up with flatwounds, set the action a little lower for the complex jazz voicings and more delicate dynamics. I think that's a good way to do things, at least for awhile. After several years of serious study, once someone has a solid handle on, say, being a good improviser, then it would seem that exploring other kinds of music in conjunction with jazz (like, again, certain areas of world music) could add to the jazz one's playing. But yeah, at least for 4-6 years (or maybe a decade if someone isn't spending all their time every day practicing) it seems like the only way to get into jazz in more than a superficial way is to just do the one thing. It's complex enough to warrant it, certainly.

[Flyin' Brian]

Jeff, I honor your knowledge and your deep contribution to this resource. But I disagree with you. And in keeping with your post I'm going to indulge in some snark when responding. Please don't take it personally; it's not meant that way.

Angle No. 1: Notice how you've adroitly sidestepped the morass bounded by the three words, "What Is Jazz?" Pray tell: Am I a good boy if I skip Eddie Lang? Sorry, no interest. Do I have to twing like Django? Sorry, I like it a little but that ship sailed long ago and too many people are still swimming after it. Billy Bauer? Puts me to sleep. How authentic to I have to be playing various Latin styles do I need to get to pass the jazzy muster?

What if I find I love Chuck Loeb? Earl Klugh? Later George Benson? Is that jazzy enough, or am I not learning the right stuff?

Angle No. 2: Because if you "study nothing but jazz" you will be listening to a lot of people who put in a lot of time learning other music. Grant Green played greasy boogaloo. Pat Metheny draws on folks and country. Kurt Rosenwinkel and Ben Monder step on the fuzz-box and shred like monsters. Julian Lage plays the blues. Mimi Fox opened her most recent disc with "This Land Is Your Land." Lionel Loueke plays Beninese music (in mixed meter). John McLaughlin . . . don't even get me started. Guess I have to give up all of that if I want to play jazz . . . even though all those folks didn't.

Angle No. 3: Because my goal is not to become a jazz player. I want to become a musician who plays jazz. If studying Brahms makes me feel like I'm progressing toward that goal, WOE BETIDE the poster who tells me I'm wrong. Get outta my way -- I've got music to go love!



Edit: This post is dedicated to my wife Kathy, who has taught me a lot about opening musical doors over the past twenty-seven years.

I'm in total agreement with Sam on all of this.

Jeff I took lessons from two highly respected players when I lived in Chicago. They are both at the top of their game. One will tell you that everybody in the post Miles-went-electric guitar world aren't jazz players. He smirks at what Metheny does. He commented on Metheny's recording of Giant Steps with derision, saying it wasn't jazz. He can't stand what Abercrombie or Scofield do. The other player has done his time regularly at Jazz Showcase, Andy's, The Green Mill and other venues and still does, but also has a rock band playing originals, a band that plays soundtracks from various highly rated movies that have a lot of musical content and he teaches.

The first guy berated me for showing up at his house for lessons with a Strat. The second one most often plays a Strat.

The first one started out playing R&B and got to jazz via Wes and Benson and guys like that. The second one was a metal shredder in high school and got to jazz by Metheny, Scofield et al. I defy most players to hang with either of them.

Trying to define jazz is like trying to say Paul Desmond and Coltrane are the same because they both play saxophone.

My point is that there are many paths on the road and taking side jaunts along that road don't necessarily ruin the journey. They add to it. To get to whatever jazz is...or let's call it "playing improvisational music at a high level" requires a lot of work, but I don't think that it requires a myopic outlook, just a determined and dedicated one.