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

[mr. beaumont]

This will be my “dickish” post for today…so sorry in advance.

There’s always a post floating around this forum about a “good guitar for jazz and rock too,” there’s one today, where I lazily responded “anything with humbuckers can get you in the ballpark” or something like that.

I’m starting this thread to openly apologize to guitarisfun, and anybody else I’ve given that kind of advice to over the years. Because the truth is, and I’m sure some will disagree—if you wanna play jazz you gotta play jazz. So my advice really should be, I think, if you wanna play jazz give up anything else you’re playing for a while and go all in. Set up a guitar JUST for jazz playing. Listen to jazz almost exclusively. Jump in with both feet.

I think those who dabble in jazz never learn to play it. What do you all think?

[TH]

Here's an obliquely cryptic non response that I've wondered about in reaction to your question Mr. B, how many people who love jazz guitar love something besides learning it?
There are lots of people who love the sounds, the guitars, the idea of magically creating those sounds, the mystique, the vibe that comes from rubbing shoulders with others in the same boat but how many DON'T want to jump in? How many even take lessons (for years!) and never do the work between? I think it may shock you.
As I've observed, jazz guitar is really appealing. It's beautiful. It's enormous. And it's a lot like work.

Yeah, jump in if you want it. But you can still get a really great guitar and wiggle your toes around the side of the pool if you don't really like getting wet. Talk is cheap. Gear may be more expensive. Committment-that's a huge investment of an entirely different scale.

David

[dingusmingus]

I've only been trying to learn jazz guitar for about a year. That's pretty much all I do, guitarwise. And jazz is pretty much all I listen to. Every once in a while, I need a break--for me that's usually some flavor of western swing/old school country. But after a week or two, it's back to the shed.

From where I sit, the issue is time. I practice about 3 hours a day of fairly structured practice, and after a year, I still feel like I have a ways to go (two more years?) before I'm competent enough to gig. And more years after that to develop a voice and actually get good. And I'd been playing rock already for years (though mostly as a bass player).

My point is that it takes a ton of shedding--probably more than I realized at first. If jazz isn't all you're doing, it's gonna take even longer! (Some other practice, like fretboard familiarization, triads, scales, etc, may cross over from other guitar work, but there's an awful lot of jazz specific work to do.)

Plus all the listening! It seems like you kind of need to get obsessed with listening and practicing.

Edit: based on Mr. B.'s analysis, maybe my time estimate is too optimistic!

[mr. beaumont]

it's an interesting response though, David.

I should be clear, I don't think there's anything wrong with toe-dipping or light wading. You gotta do to make you happy.

I'm really only directing this at the jazz newbie who genuinely wants to be able to play jazz, at a level high enough they can hang in most situations, gig, play with others unrehearsed, etc.

I'm coming to this conclusion because I see myself at a crossroads of sorts...I'm ten years into working on/practicing jazz only. Sure I've played other styles in these ten years, but I haven't practiced them or learned anything new approach wise. The only thing I practice or play at home is jazz.

And I'm thinking, ten years in, I'm finally seeing something in return. I'm finally at a point where I can hang in a lot of situations. I can get up there and not embarrass myself. I won't bring everybody else down. I'm not great...or even all that good...but I know what I can do. 10 years is a long time on a short scale, but a short time in the grand scheme...and I haven't practiced nearly enough. I'm completely convinced a better student could make the same progress I've made in ten years in half the time.

So I think, 5 years...that's not a huge commitment at all, really.

[mr. beaumont]

Dingus, thanks, I think that makes a lot of sense.

[pkirk]

I think those who dabble in jazz never learn to play it. What do you all think?

To continue the dickish theme, I raise your "dabble" to "I think most who work hard at jazz never learn to play it."
There is a lot of music being played that is called jazz, but has little to do with the tradition other than taking its source material out of the songbook.

In my own case, the more I listen/study/practice/perform, the more I realize how my playing lacks 99% of the ingredients that make up the standards of the tradition. And I've put a lot of effort in in over the years.

[mr. beaumont]

I'd agree with that too. Jazz is hard. Wear a cup.

But I also don't think the tradition of the music needs to be evident. Respected, studied, understood, yes, but evident in the music--no.

I think of Christian Scott's "Christian Atunde Adjuah" as a great example. Now if you've heard Christian play, you know there's plenty of respect--almost a reverence--for the music's roots. But the music on this double CD sounds like 2013 or 14 or beyond. There's no "Stella by Starlight." And it's the best jazz record of the last 5 years, IMHO.


Part of jazz is bringing your own experience to it. I was listening to the Hot Fives and Sevens in my car yesterday, and thought in just 20-25 years after those recordings we were at bebop. 40 years and we're at Bitches Brew. If anything, we're too traditional nowadays. It's been over 40 years since Bitches Brew and that sh*t still sounds as wild and fresh as anything, doesn't it?

Thread digression. Love it. Feel free to comment on any of it folks, it's just a conversation, and as Reg often says--don't take it too seriously--we're not saving lives here

[docbop]

I don't know how you'd classify it but after working in a Jazz school for many years I find it common to see people study, practice Jazz, but to pay the bills they are playing Rock, Pop, whatever and spend time keep current to live. So would that be considered dabbling. To be a true Artist sure one would dedicate themselves to their music but not many people have what it takes to do that. One I know is Nel Cline back in college Nels and I shared the guitar chair in the Jazz band, amazing musician even then and really nice guy. Over the years Nels only played his style of Jazz and to pay bills worked in bookstore, record shops, and similar jobs till eventually could make ends meet with his CDs and gigs. That is a true artist to me.

[coolvinny]

I totally agree that anyone wanting to learn jazz needs dive in and hit it hard. I'm about 4 years into serious guitar study with a jazz focus and I've made a lot of progress, all while working hard in a busy career and having a life, etc. I think I need another 2 years to get to where I want to be. I've really immersed myself...I listen to jazz, I check out gigs (figuring out the form of the song and keeping my place during everything the band plays), I jam with others, and I practice every day.

I know people who've dabbled for like 50 years and they still can't play anything with good time feel, and they usually haven't memorized more than 5 tunes. As pkirk said, they just play jazz songs out of a jazz book.

Also, I recently hooked up with my old band mates from nearly a decade ago when we had a terrible, totally non-pro blues band. None of us had ever played in a band before and we had no idea what we were doing. Blues and rock stuff. By buckling down for a week, I played the heck out of that stuff. I just had to simplify my approach - I had the chops, the musical understanding, the time feel etc to play that music just fine. Even bending came back to me very easy - bending is not this high art that many blues guys make it out to be (good time feel helps). I mention this because some might fear that by focusing on jazz their other music styles may suffer - I think they will suffer temporarily because each style of music has its own vocabulary which can get rusty if not played/listened to, but it's easy to get the blues/rock feel back through a bit of immersion.

[Jonzo]

I'd agree with that too. Jazz is hard. Wear a cup.

This metaphor ties in nicely with the dickish theme of the thread. Well done.

[fep]

it's an interesting response though, David.

I should be clear, I don't think there's anything wrong with toe-dipping or light wading. You gotta do to make you happy.

I'm really only directing this at the jazz newbie who genuinely wants to be able to play jazz, at a level high enough they can hang in most situations, gig, play with others unrehearsed, etc.

Yeah, those two are very different things.

The vast majority of advise on this forum applies to the second type of player with high aspirations. I wonder if the majority of the members on this forum fit into the first category, the toe dippers that primarily play for enjoyment. I've often consider this and thought that much of the advice given on this forum is not necessarily appropriate for the second category of member.

That argument on transcribing that went on a while back, for the folks that aspire to be high level musicians, I wouldn't argue that transcribing is a good idea.

For the toe-dipping crowd that is just playing for enjoyment, the deferred gratification of transcribing and ear training in general... I'm not sure advocating that would be good advice. Especially if the toe-dipper is getting long in the tooth.

All that deferred gratification can get too much in the way of actually playing music, playing tunes.

I'm kind of a tweener, I pretty much play for enjoyment and don't aspire to be able to cover any situation. I do find myself playing with groups and the very infrequent gig and I do that mostly because I think I should. But, I find it much more enjoyable to just play at home, mostly for myself and sometimes for family and friends.

And, I enjoy participating in this forum more than playing a gig.

[paulkogut]

I think a lot of confusion arises between people who look at 'jazz' as an aggregate of techniques and those who treat jazz as a process and tradition of music.


To expand on pkirk's point, a few years back I was in a recording studio, listening to the playback of a take. The bassist, (who's played with Joe Henderson, Freddie Hubbard, David Liebman, Kenny Burrell, etc) nodded approvingly and said "That's jazz" and after a moment's pause added something like "most things that set out to be jazz never really get there" So there's that school of thought,it's not jazz until it's up to a certain level, like you haven't really played baseball unless you were on the field at Wrigley or Fenway. To get to that level really requires an all-in approach for a long period of time.


Then there's the view that the jazz is in the material, you start with cowboy chords, then barre chords, and then move on to jazz chords.: it's jazz because it has jazz chords in it .This is a valid perspective as well. There's a lot to be learned and benefit to be gained from studying material like scales, modes, voicings, and progressions common to jazz even if your end goal is not to go out and do a traditional jazz gig Lots of interesting music has been made with a jazz influence by folks that aren't jazz musicians, and lots of satisfying leisure time has been spent alone with a guitar with no agenda beyond enjoying the moment.


The problems arise when folks are unaware or unwilling to make the distinction, someone talks their way into a gig they have nowhere near the skill set to do, people become susceptible to 'snake oil' teachers who contend that jazz has a 'trick' or 'secret' instead of just requiring a firm grasp of the basics and a lot of hard work, folks argue that a particular skill (sight-reading, transcribing) should be declared unnecessary across the board rather than just admit to themselves that it's something they don't personally feel like doing and accept the consequences of not developing that particular skill.


As far as the equipment advice goes, it's important for a newbie to realize that even if your plan is to jump into jazz with both feet, there's no one universally agreed upon 'jazz' guitar style or setup. Hollowbody, solid body, heavy strings, light strings are all options. The google is good for figuring out how different players sounds are influenced by their choices in gear.




PK

[eccegeorge]

I take your point that you can't dabble in jazz. I agree, you have to go all in. But, for a young guy or a beginner, I think it also really comes down to economy and the "who knows?" factor.

When you only have the budget to buy one electric guitar, it's only natural to want to get the most versatile guitar you can. I think for beginners, especially young beginners, it is not only not wrong to encourage them on their path to getting a versatile guitar, it is actually the smart thing to do. Most people will probably give up on jazz. They'll give up because it's hard, I don't reasonably think they'll give up because they have two other pickups. They were going to give up either way. So, when somebody is just starting out with a tight budget, it is probably best to go with a guitar that gives them options.

Ultimately, no matter what the gear, the work ethic and the desire drives one down the path of jazz, not the guitar. My guitar teacher is a great old-school player with an L-5 he uses on gigs. Every single time I go to his house for a lesson, he plays an old beat up flat top that is so obscure it is literally not even branded. He's had it for thirty years. He has no idea what it is. But that is what he practices on, he loves the sound. If that was the only guitar he had, he would still be playing jazz. Same goes for somebody who has a jazz box, but doesn't have the desire to play jazz. The mere fact that they dropped $$ on a jazz box isn't enough motivation.

Also, I admit I am sort of happy I don't have a jazz box. I'm not good enough yet. I think it sets up expectations when you walk in with that thing. I once took a jazz guitar class when I was visiting home for the summer and only had my old flat top. I walked into a room full of guys with Gibsons and they raised an eyebrow. Here's a guy in Nashville with a flat-top steel string taking a jazz guitar class. I ended up getting to impress them because they had such insanely low expectations. And some of those rich guys with the Gibsons ended up looking like idiots for having a guitar that costs as much as my car and not having any idea how to play it. It's like showing up on the golf course with a sparkling new set of Callaways: you better be able to play.

[Pat Clare]

Years ago when I studied with Harry Leahy he said it was a lifetime process, so I would have to agree with Mr. B.

[mr. beaumont]

Right...I should be more ckear...what im saying is not that one shouldn't have a versatile guitar, but more, if you're serious about jazz maybe you shouldn't plan on being too versatile for a while...

[mr. beaumont]

Years ago when I studied with Harry Leahy he said it was a lifetime process, so I would have to agree with Mr. B.

Yeah...and I guess im saying I've loved jazz about twice as long as I've been seriously trying to play it. I wasted a lot of time early on playing in rock bands (which I really didn't enjoy) and half-assed learning of a few licks, some chords...ignoring a lot of history and crucial deep listening.

I flash forward to where I really got into things...even listening to louis armstrong (which I used to think was shrill and corny) and realizing all that was there...baby steps. We used to talk about art with a capital A back in school...mayve now I can see myself making Jazz someday.

[JSanta]

For what little it's worth, I considered myself a rock and metal guitarist for most of my life. However, when I started taking guitar lessons a couple of years ago (I'm 28 now), and got serious about jazz, I sold off all my gear, bought an archtop, and dove in. I think at my age especially, if I didn't really focus on it, I would never have the chance to be a competent player in the future. I am not a naturally gifted musician, I have to work very hard for just a little progress, but I think jazz is kind of the same thing. It takes work.

That being said, I've diverged in gypsy jazz, but still spend a great deal of time with my archtop.

[Sam Sherry]

Because the truth is, and I’m sure some will disagree—if you wanna play jazz you gotta play jazz. So my advice really should be, I think, if you wanna play jazz give up anything else you’re playing for a while and go all in. Set up a guitar JUST for jazz playing. Listen to jazz almost exclusively. Jump in with both feet.

I think those who dabble in jazz never learn to play it. What do you all think?

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.

[eccegeorge]

Right...I should be more ckear...what im saying is not that one shouldn't have a versatile guitar, but more, if you're serious about jazz maybe you shouldn't plan on being too versatile for a while...

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.

[Nabil B]

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I don't think playing jazz is something that can be done on the side. It's a demanding discipline that requires a lot of practice, listening, analyzing and patience, to deal with the inevitable frustrations and obstacles that come with it.

Here's a great quote from Wynton Marsalis : "Jazz is not just, "Well, man, this is what I feel like playing." It's a very structured thing that comes down from a tradition and requires a lot of thought and study."

[ecj]

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.

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

[eccegeorge]

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

That's pretty freaking awesome for a teenager. When I was sixteen I was playing Jimmy Buffet songs around a campfire. You are WAY WAY ahead of me . . .

[mr. beaumont]

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.

Good stuff Sam.

My short response will be (since I have to head to graduation) is that allowing oneself to be influenced, even deeply, by other music is not the same as "I'm going to be a great jazz player, and a great country player, and a great metal player, and..."

My other quick response will be "there sure ain't a whole lot of Pats and Johns on this earth...I think I know why."

Lastly, I don't define jazz. Jazz isn't a what--it's a how (with apologies to Bill Evans)

[Michael Kaye]

Great post, mr B. It already has spawned some fascinating views. I mostly agree with you. I'm pushing for the 5 year plan but each year or phase brings about new revelations about jazz and I'm pretty sure I will be an honest student of jazz for the rest of my life.

i have been playing guitar a long time, 35+ years now. Over 30 years of it has been in some professional capacity. I love to play and I play a lot. Nearly 2 years ago I decided to become a serious student of jazz. Naturally, I had dabbled in jazz before this, but jumping in whole heartedly 2 years ago taught me first, I didn't know jack sh*t about jazz even though years before I transcribed a few Carlton, Henderson and Dimeola riffs and could jam to my hearts content on "Chameleon", and second, it only took a few months to realize I was on long long road to discovery. Krist, I'm a noob all over again....it's very humbling to return to this state.

but I think I've done a few things right. I got a jazz guitar and set it up like one. I took lessons religiously for 9 months from a real jazz guitarist and I'm scheduling myself to go back for another bout this summer. I have immersed myself in jazz. My radio has been stuck on KCSM (24/7 jazz) and hasn't moved for two years. I found a band that plays jazz, and not "Chameleon". It has been a painful 2 years much like a body building program would be (only much more painful ). But after 2 years I can finally hang and I still know I've got a long way to go.

I took the "jump all in" route. It's working for me. It may not be for everybody and that's totally okay with me. I don't think less of those who dabble at all. For me, what works is a regular practice routine and a dedicated attitude. It's a lot of work and very humbling, but it's also very fun, very rewarding, and really taking me in to a jazz world. I'm finding as I get more competent I'm enjoying it even more.

[ecj]

That's pretty freaking awesome for a teenager. When I was sixteen I was playing Jimmy Buffet songs around a campfire. You are WAY WAY ahead of me . . .

Well, there was a good deal of that, too

Nothing wrong with playing music that people love around a campfire.