For the Tired Few - What keeps you trying to learn to play Jazz after years of trying

[ruger9]

I'm going with what's important to me...

There once was a boy who loved dogs and guitars. He met a girl. The end.

That's me too.

[ruger9]

This may not be a popular response with teachers but a musician must start with talent. If its not present, you may still become a good functional musician but you'll never have "it." And, that's O.K. if you're happy. However, dissatisfaction is the motor to success. The problem with most musicians is that they are dissatisfied with their playing and never move on. That requires talent, not just hard work . . . period.
Play live . . . Marinero

I have also witnessed, and experienced myself, the opposite: That requires hard work, not just talent. Plenty of YT players with loads of talent, but perhaps will never go anywhere professionally, either because they don't want to or are unwilling to put in the hard work required (paying dues)... especially when playing came so easy to them due to their natural talent.

I've also seen plenty of pros say it's MORE about the hard work than the talent.

[ruger9]

I consider the time I give myself each day to play a true gift. I have loved the music for over 45 years now and it is a great joy to pick up the instrument every day.

THIS is the way to live life. And not just with playing music, but with walking your dogs, visiting your parents, seeing friends, cooking a meal you love, etc.

[pamosmusic]

I have also witnessed, and experienced myself, the opposite: That requires hard work, not just talent. Plenty of YT players with loads of talent, but perhaps will never go anywhere professionally, either because they don't want to or are unwilling to put in the hard work required (paying dues)... especially when playing came so easy to them due to their natural talent.

I've also seen plenty of pros say it's MORE about the hard work than the talent.

Id agree with that 100%.

The standard matters obviously. Are we talking about who’s going to be the next Pat Metheny or who’s going to be a successful gigging jazz musician who’s better than 99% of the ones who give it a go. For the former, you need massive talent and the work ethic. For the latter, a pretty modest talent will do.

Also treating “talent” pretty broadly. Having hands that make chords easily is great. Having an excellent ear. Also being analytical and a great problem solver. Having an excellent memory for tunes.

Also … as a teacher of one or two quite gifted high school kids, talent can get you about 80% there but it can’t get you the rest. And kids who are talented tend (not always) to get very frustrated with the remaining 20%.

[Tal_175]

It's not that jazz guitar is hard. It's more like the pedagogical standards of other guitar styles is extremely low when it comes to fretboard harmony, harmonic improvisation, harmonic analysis, reharmonization, multivoice arrangement. That includes classical guitarists.

Many posters said they decided to learn jazz to improve their skills playing non-jazz music. It's a shame that musicians in other styles feel like they have to learn jazz because they want to improve their orchestration (on guitar) and improvisation skills in their own genres. It's a shame because straight ahead and bebop jazz harmony is really just pop and common practice classical harmony. This is also true for "playing the changes". It is not a jazz device. It is universal. What makes it jazz are the specifics of the language.

The "jazz gap" exists because there doesn't seem to be a sufficiently well developed pedagogy for a more pianistic fretboard harmony as well as chord outline improvisation in other styles. In fact it is questionable if that even exists in jazz education.

[pamosmusic]

It's not that jazz guitar is hard. It's more like the pedagogical standards of other guitar styles is extremely low when it comes to fretboard harmony, harmonic improvisation, harmonic analysis, reharmonization, multivoice arrangement. That includes classical guitarists.

Many posters said they decided to learn jazz to improve their skills playing non-jazz music. It's shameful that musicians in other styles feel like they have to learn jazz because they want to improve their orchestration (on guitar) and improvisation skills in their own genres. It's shameful because straight ahead and bebop jazz harmony is really just pop and common practice classical harmony. This is also true for "playing the changes". It is not a jazz device. It is universal. What makes it jazz are the specifics of the language.

The "jazz gap" exists because there doesn't seem to be a sufficiently well developed pedagogy for a more pianistic fretboard harmony as well as chord outline improvisation in other styles. In fact it is questionable if that even exists in jazz education.

This is a good point.

My first guitar teacher was a metal-head and he was excellent and honestly that's why. He got me into jazz and tried to teach for a bit, but then kind of let me do that on my own while he just taught me guitar. And I think that worked really well because that type of guitar player also generally has a really high technical standard. So he was the guy that kicked my a$$ on triad inversions when I was fourteen, and made sure I actually understood chord-scale theory and had a reasonable picture of its usefulness etc etc etc.

(also just having a teacher who (1) was genuinely on the lookout for things I was interested in, even if he was not, and (2) knew his own limitations enough to stop trying to teach me something he didn't know well so he could focus on things he did is exceedingly rare too.)

[AllanAllen]

The "jazz gap" exists because there doesn't seem to be a sufficiently well developed pedagogy for a more pianistic fretboard harmony as well as chord outline improvisation in other styles. In fact it is questionable if that even exists in jazz education.

1. Learn the major scale in any system. Take it through all 12 keys

2. Learn a handful of chords and inversions. Major 7, major 6, minor 7, minor 6, m7b5, diminished. Take them through all 12 keys.

3. Learn melodies and solos by ear. Take a few of them through all 12 keys. This will be the most time consuming 12 keys exercise, but also the most important.


It’s not that hard to lay out, but the steps all
take a lot of time. You also shouldn’t spend the same amount of time on each step. If you have an hour spend 5 minutes on scales, 10 minutes on new chords and vamps/turnarounds then 50 minutes on tunes or a solo.

A lot of stuff fits in these buckets, Schofield’s scale exercises that had you all twisted up. That’s in bucket 1. Spend a little time every day on it. It’s confusing at first and seems like pointless rote memorization, and a lot of guys who can’t play will tell you it is on forums, but keep going and slowly it’ll get easier. Also, don’t take a scale you don’t know through 3rds and 4ths before you know it straight across the neck. Trying to running before you can walk… you’ll just fall over.

[Tal_175]

A lot of stuff fits in these buckets, Schofield’s scale exercises that had you all twisted up..

I think you confusing me with another poster. Schofield interfallic exercises are my bread and butter even though I didn't learn it from his videos.
I find learning the major scale in any key "deeply" to be more beneficial than the 12 keys approach. What's learned in one key can be generalized to 12 keys relatively easily. Learning deeply involves developing a "unified" view of the scale with arpeggios, chord movements and intervals in the scale. That's just my experience.

[pamosmusic]

1. Learn the major scale in any system. Take it through all 12 keys

2. Learn a handful of chords and inversions. Major 7, major 6, minor 7, minor 6, m7b5, diminished. Take them through all 12 keys.

3. Learn melodies and solos by ear. Take a few of them through all 12 keys. This will be the most time consuming 12 keys exercise, but also the most important.


It’s not that hard to lay out, but the steps all
take a lot of time. You also shouldn’t spend the same amount of time on each step. If you have an hour spend 5 minutes on scales, 10 minutes on new chords and vamps/turnarounds then 50 minutes on tunes or a solo.

A lot of stuff fits in these buckets, Schofield’s scale exercises that had you all twisted up. That’s in bucket 1. Spend a little time every day on it. It’s confusing at first and seems like pointless rote memorization, and a lot of guys who can’t play will tell you it is on forums, but keep going and slowly it’ll get easier. Also, don’t take a scale you don’t know through 3rds and 4ths before you know it straight across the neck. Trying to running before you can walk… you’ll just fall over.

Yeah this is pretty good. But also I think what Tal means is that even this is quite a bit looser than what some other instruments have in terms of bare technical skills. And *other styles of guitar* might have some accomplished players who could technically play circles around you who wouldn’t even know what you’re talking about with some of this stuff, let alone be able to bust it out in real time. Some people use this as evidences that all that “theory” is hot air, but I’m inclined to just be a little bummed out that a lot of guitarists aren’t terribly curious about their instruments.

Lots of pretty well-known rock guitarists play off two pentatonic patterns (root on the 6th string w index and root on the 5th with index), and then just have some licks to get them from one to the next. Additional notes are mostly ear.

[pamosmusic]

Allen ... this is also not to say that your list of stuff up there isn't sufficient or good enough to learn your instrument. It kind of is, honestly. Tal used the word "pedagogy" which usually implies some codified component to the whole thing. When I want to teach a student classical guitar (which is still a century or two younger than a lot of other concert instruments) there are several very high-quality, reasonably complete methods from which I can pull, and numerous exercises that are absolutely 100% standard that every classical guitarist needs to play (e.g. Segovia scales, Giuliani arpeggios, etc).

Jazz guitar doesn't really have that at all.

[AllanAllen]

Tal, you are right that last bit about scales was for Girgoris, who revived the thread a page back.

Peter, so pedagogy is more like step by step instructions? Build this specific chair, instead of build a chair?

[charlieparker]

Allen ... this is also not to say that your list of stuff up there isn't sufficient or good enough to learn your instrument. It kind of is, honestly. Tal used the word "pedagogy" which usually implies some codified component to the whole thing. When I want to teach a student classical guitar (which is still a century or two younger than a lot of other concert instruments) there are several very high-quality, reasonably complete methods from which I can pull, and numerous exercises that are absolutely 100% standard that every classical guitarist needs to play (e.g. Segovia scales, Giuliani arpeggios, etc).

Jazz guitar doesn't really have that at all.

It's interesting because I think the way rock guitar is taught works pretty well. When I was taking lessons way back in the day, my teacher just taught me songs (riffs and solos note for note) which I learned to play along with some basic chord and scale stuff to improvise.

Where I think Jazz education went wrong for me was spending too much time on learning "theory" and practicing improvisation without learning language and songs and jazz rhythms. And secondarily neglecting earlier "simpler" forms of jazz. I also started with modal jazz which I also think is a mistake because it kind of reinforces a chord-scale approach to Jazz.

Like I said, I'm now focused on learning some swing version of rhythm changes like Lester Leaps in and really focusing on rhythm and some swing era riffs to play on these songs.

I've recorded some stuff and have been pleasantly surprised by how some of it sounds.

In other words, I think I was trying to run before I could walk and that maybe Jazz pedagogy could be improved if a more graded approach to the music was taken but emphasizing learning swing era stuff first (instead of modal or even some Jazz blues which people can make overly complex).

[Tal_175]

Tal, you are right that last bit about scales was for Girgoris, who revived the thread a page back.

Peter, so pedagogy is more like step by step instructions? Build this specific chair, instead of build a chair?

Pedagogy to me is having a clear set of goals and a coherent approach to help student reach these goals. The approach and the material the approach relies on should be well thought-out and empirically justified. That is, the fact that the approach works doesn't need to be self evident as long as it can be shown that it worked successfully on many students in the past.

[pamosmusic]

Tal, you are right that last bit about scales was for Girgoris, who revived the thread a page back.

Peter, so pedagogy is more like step by step instructions? Build this specific chair, instead of build a chair?

Maybe like …

If you want to be a carpenter, you can start working for a carpenter and pick up a lot of skills, or you could go to a trade school that has a sequence and curriculum.

The analogy breaks down because both of those are great ways to learn, but most guitar players are like woodworkers who didn’t really do either of those things and just started building chairs for people and were like “good enough” and opened a store. And also they think people who took the time to learn the trade are like …. chumps or something.

[pamosmusic]

It's interesting because I think the way rock guitar is taught works pretty well. When I was taking lessons way back in the day, my teacher just taught me songs (riffs and solos note for note) which I learned to play along with some basic chord and scale stuff to improvise.

Where I think Jazz education went wrong for me was spending too much time on learning "theory" and practicing improvisation without learning language and songs and jazz rhythms. And secondarily neglecting earlier "simpler" forms of jazz. I also started with modal jazz which I also think is a mistake because it kind of reinforces a chord-scale approach to Jazz.

Like I said, I'm now focused on learning some swing version of rhythm changes like Lester Leaps in and really focusing on rhythm and some swing era riffs to play on these songs.

I've recorded some stuff and have been pleasantly surprised by how some of it sounds.

In other words, I think I was trying to run before I could walk and that maybe Jazz pedagogy could be improved if a more graded approach to the music was taken but emphasizing learning swing era stuff first (instead of modal or even some Jazz blues which people can make overly complex).

I think you’re talking here about two extremes, neither of which works very well, frankly.

Jazz actually can be kind of complex, so I’m a little skeptical of people making the argument that it’s been over-complicated. Though, there’s certainly some truth to that, I think the truth might run the opposite way. Chord-scale formulas and that kind of thing I think sort of over-SIMPLIFY jazz, which is generally way more interesting than just deciding which notes work over a chord change.

With that said, a lot of jazz ed stuff is pretty light on actual vocabulary, or maybe makes the focus of that vocabulary a justification of theoretical concepts or something.

Flip side being that rock guys who just learn licks and stuff might sound good on rock tunes, but often have no clue how to actually make music or use their instrument creatively. Jazz ed had certainly failed on a lot of metrics, but “rock ed” the way you describe it and the way it’s often practiced is a pretty abject failure honestly.

[Tal_175]

Flip side being that rock guys who just learn licks and stuff might sound good on rock tunes, but often have no clue how to actually make music or use their instrument creatively. Jazz ed had certainly failed on a lot of metrics, but “rock ed” the way you describe it and the way it’s often practiced is a pretty abject failure honestly.

That's right. That seems to be the reason why some rock musicians who want to move beyond pentatonics, licks and power chords come to jazz.

Again this is unfortunate because there is no reason a richer approach to harmony, arrangement and improvisation cannot be offered within these popular styles other than memorizing modes without knowing what to do with them.

[pamosmusic]

Electric blues would be probably a good example of that approach working.

The way most people go about learning rock guitar is a pretty poor approximation of that ear-and-licks-forward way of doing things, but it might be a matter of depth rather than something qualitatively different.

[Woodstove]

I'll add something my guitar teacher (and performance partner) said that I find very simple and helpful. "Make sure you celebrate every bit of progress you make". It's much more conducive to making progress than fretting (pun intended) over gains not, yet, made.

[pamosmusic]

I guess I also think there is some separation between these things.

You CAN play blues or rock without much fretboard knowledge.

You also CAN play jazz without much, though it’s harder. (More interesting are people I think who play jazz well with very different ways of understanding the fretboard)


I guess I find it odd that people would want to. It’s like being an excellent chair maker without knowing anything broader about making furniture, or carpentry, etc. I’m not sure how learning about those things could fail to make you better at building the chair. Why not do it? Though that’s me … I realize some people just don’t really work that way and do what they do very well. Anyway.

[charlieparker]

I guess I also think there is some separation between these things.

You CAN play blues or rock without much fretboard knowledge.

You also CAN play jazz without much, though it’s harder. (More interesting are people I think who play jazz well with very different ways of understanding the fretboard)


I guess I find it odd that people would want to. It’s like being an excellent chair maker without knowing anything broader about making furniture, or carpentry, etc. I’m not sure how learning about those things could fail to make you better at building the chair. Why not do it? Though that’s me … I realize some people just don’t really work that way and do what they do very well. Anyway.

For me, I have limited time to devote to the craft and it's about getting the most bang for my buck so to speak. I think I've spent far too much time learning some theory and playing scales over chords in an undirected fashion, but not enough time internalizing aspects of the language (primarily rhythm but also actual riffs/licks and phrases).

At the end of the day, though, people like me with day jobs probably need a good teacher like yourself and others to guide us on this journey and I think I've just been going it alone for too long.

[Grigoris]

My frustration comes from the fact that even with a teacher (the second one - after an almost “traumatic” experience with the first guy) I’m still lost when I’m alone in my room and don’t really know how to best use the limited time I have after a day of work and taking care of my kids. Running scales in intervals is perhaps beneficial in the long term but as much fun as mopping.

[pamosmusic]

For me, I have limited time to devote to the craft and it's about getting the most bang for my buck so to speak. I think I've spent far too much time learning some theory and playing scales over chords in an undirected fashion, but not enough time internalizing aspects of the language (primarily rhythm but also actual riffs/licks and phrases).

Yeah I don’t think you’re wrong here. For what it’s worth, I think you can work backwards from licks and bebop heads and end up at something resembling scales etc, but the reverse isn’t really true.

I usually have students kind of working on both in tandem (though sort of as separate tracks for a while).

[pamosmusic]

My frustration comes from the fact that even with a teacher (the second one - after an almost “traumatic” experience with the first guy) I’m still lost when I’m alone in my room and don’t really know how to best use the limited time I have after a day of work and taking care of my kids. Running scales in intervals is perhaps beneficial in the long term but as much fun as mopping.

Interesting.

So for what it’s worth, I don’t really see a teachers role in this context as being The Person To Impart Knowledge. There isn’t really that much to impart … the complications are in the application. Changes can get dicey quickly etc. I usually think of a teacher’s role as being The Person Who Can Help You Practice.

Speaking of treating the thought of “talent” fairly broadly, being able to problem solve and practice effectively is a talent too, and one that not all good players have. Separate and apart from whether or not someone is a good teacher who can effectively communicate solutions to the problems you’re having .

[Mick-7]

You CAN play blues or rock without much fretboard knowledge.

You also CAN play jazz without much, though it’s harder. (More interesting are people I think who play jazz well with very different ways of understanding the fretboard)

Can you give me an example of "a very different way of understanding the fretboard"?

[AllanAllen]

Running scales in intervals is perhaps beneficial in the long term but as much fun as mopping.

Like mopping, it should only take a few minutes and then you can move on.

As a sidebar, I never understood why it takes some people so long to clean. I had a family member once say, they couldn’t watch the kids because they were washing sheets. I know how laundry works. It’s 60 seconds of effort and an hour of waiting….